Savatri Devi vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sodhi, J.

Did the tenants holding land under the landowner Devi Singh lose their right under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') to purchase the land held by them upon the death of said Devi Singh ? This is the question that calls for determination here.

The respondents Bhola, Norata, Chitru, Rasala and Punna had applied for the purchase of land held by them as tenants under Devi Singh. During the pendency of these proceedings, Devi Singh died on October 8, 1969. It is the case of the petitioners, who are Devi Singh''s widow and children, that on his death, they become small landowners, as defined in the Act and the application for purchase of land could not, therefore, proceed against them.

The contention raised cannot be sustained in view of the binding precedent provided by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rameshwar and others v. Jot Ram and others, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 49. The matter here arose from applications by tenants of a landowner for the purchase of land under Section 18 of the Act. After the primary authority had found them eligible for such purchase and the tenants had deposited the first instalment of the price fixed, the landowner died during the pendency of the appeal filed by him against the order permitting the purchase of land by the tenants. The heirs of the deceased landowner would have become small landowners if the land inherited by them were to be divided amongst them. It was held that the right of the tenants fixed under Section 18(1) and (4) of the Act could not be uprooted by the supervening circumstances. It being observed that it was basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceedings and later developments cannot defeat his right.

Mr. Ram Sarup, counsel for the petitioners sought to distinguish this authority on the ground that in the present case the tenants had not paid the first instalment of the purchase price under Section 18(4) of the Act and consequently the land had not vested in them before Devi Singh died. It would not be necessary to go into this aspect of the matter here as the claim of the petitioners cannot be sustained on another grand too. It has come on record and is indeed the admitted case of the parties, that Devi Singh had during his life time disposed of the entire land held by him, whether by sale, gift or otherwise to the petitioners and others. The petitioners thus became owners of the land in dispute by virtue of this disposition of land in their favour by Devi Singh before his death. No land, therefore, came to them by inheritance from Devi Singh. This is where the provisions of Section 16 of the Act come in. It being provided thereunder :

"S.16. Save in the case of and acquired by the State Government under any law for the time being in force, or by an heir by inheritance, no transfer or other disposition of land effected after the 1st February, 1955, shall affect the rights of the tenant thereon under this Act."

There is thus a clear mandate of law that no transfer or disposition of land made after February 1, 1955 shall affect the right of tenants thereon as available to them under the Act. The two exceptions here being with regard to land acquired by the State or by an heir by inheritance. Neither of these exceptions is applicable here as no land had come to the petitioners by inheritance from Devi Singh. It is not disputed that all transfers of land by Devi Singh were after February 1, 1955. It follows, therefore, that even if the land transferred by Devi Singh to the petitioners reduced their status to "small landowners" as defined in the Act, this could not defeat the rights of the respondenttenants under Section 18 of the Act to purchase the land held by them.

The impugned order of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana of February 26, 1980 (Annexure P/2) setting aside the orders of the Collector and Commissioner and remanding the cases to the Collector warrants no interference in writ proceedings.

This writ petition is consequently hereby dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

D.S. Tewatia, J. I agree.