Noor Mohd. vs State of Haryana and another

S.S. Sodhi, J.

The facts relevant to this matter are that Noor Mohammad, the petitioner in the Writ Petition referred to above and Nasib Khan, the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.503 of 1977 held land as tenants under Smt. Parbati. On June 6, 1964 the land held by them was declared to be part of the surplus area of the said Smt. Parbati under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This order was, however, set aside on appeal by the Commissioner, Ambala Division on September 9, 1964. A fresh order regarding the declaration of surplus area of Smt. Parbati was then passed by the Collector on May 11, 1967. This again was set aside by the Commissioner, Ambala Division on appeal on December 10, 1968. Ultimately, on August 6, 1969, the Collector Palwal passed the order (Annexure R3) whereby some land owned by Smt. Parbati was declared surplus. According to this order, the land held by the two petitioners Noor Mohammad and Nasib Khan was, however, included in the permissible area of Smt. Parbati.

During the pendency of the proceedings relating to the determination and declaration of surplus area of Smt. Parbati, the petitioners Noor Mohammad and Nasib Khan applied under Section 18 of the Act for purchase of the land held by them. This application was made on July 20, 1965. By an ex parte order the Assistant Collector accepted this application (Annexure P1). Smt. Parbati applied for setting aside this order, but the prayer was declined by the Assistant Collector on April 29, 1970 and an appeal against this order was dismissed on October 13, 1970. In revision however the Financial Commissioner set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and remanded the case for fresh decision. This order was passed by the Financial Commissioner on September 13, 1971.

When the matter came up before the Assistant Collector on remand, the application of the petitioners was again allowed on April 26, 1973. On appeal, however, this order was set aside by the Collector on January 14, 1974 (Annexure P2). An appeal against this order was dismissed by the Commissioner by his order of February 27, 1976 and the revision was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on July 27, 1976 (Annexure P4).

It is well settled that a tenant cannot under Section 18 of the Act purchase land comprised in the permissible area of a big landowner. Conceding this proposition of law, the point sought to be urged by Mr. R.N. Narula, counsel for the petitioners was that the relevant date for determining the nature and character of the land held by a tenant for purposes of Section 18 of the Act was the date when the application was filed. On that date, he argued, the land held by the petitioners was surplus as it had been declared as such on June 6, 1964. He sought in this behalf to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rameshwar and others v. Jot Ram and another, 1975 P.L.J. 454.

There is no merit in the contention raised and the authority sought to be relied upon cannot apply to the facts here. Rameshwar and others v. Jot Ram and another(supra), was a case where an application for purchase of land under Section 18 of the Act had been filed by tenants of a big landowner. Purchase was sought of land which admittedly did not form part of the permissible area of the landowner. During the pendency of the appeal against the order allowing purchase of land held by the tenants, the landowner died and thereby his heirs became small landowners. It was sought to be contended that the tenants thereby became disentitled to purchase the land. It was on these set of facts that the Supreme Court held that the tenants who were competent to buy the land at the time they made the application under Section 18 of the Act could not be uprooted by the supervening circumstances. It was said that it was not permissible to project the landowner''s subsequent death backwards to refuse a right already acquired.

The facts as have arisen in the present case, bear no resemblance to the matter dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case cited above and it cannot, therefore, be treated as precedent applicable here.

As has been shown above, the matter relating to the declaration of surplus area of Smt. Parbati remained pending before the competent authorities and it was only on August 6, 1969 that it came to be finally settled. The order of June 6, 1964 whereby the land had been declared surplus stood set aside long before that date and it is, therefore, not open to the petitioners to seek to fall back upon that order with a view to show that the land held by them was surplus when they applied under Section 18. Once the order was passed by the Collector on August 6, 1969 whereby the land held by the petitioners was shown as part of the permissible area of Smt. Parbati, is must be taken that it was so right from the commencement of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the authorities below have rightly held that the petitioners were not entitled to purchase the land in question.

Mr. P.N. Aggarwal, counsel for the respondents had also raised a preliminary objection that necessary parties had not been impleaded in these petitions. In view of the fact that on merits no ground for interference has been made out, this objection need not be gone into.

In the result both the Writ Petitions are hereby dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.