Smt. Chinti vs Trilok Chand and Others

V.P. Gupta, J.—Smt. Chinti (tenant-Appellant) made an application u/s 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquisition of proprietary rights on 4th April, 1967, before the Compensation Officer, Mahasu. Trilok Chand and Ors. (Respondents-landowners) contested this application on the ground that the Appellant was in arrears of rent and a suit for her ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent had been filed by them earlier to the filing of this application in the court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Mahasu. It was also alleged that some of the landowners were minors and had o means of livelihood and for this reason they were entitled to the benefit of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act. The right of the Appellant to file the application for acquisition of proprietary rights was also contested on the ground that the latest revenue entries did not disclose the Appellant to be a tenant of the disputed land.

In the ejectment proceedings a decree for ejectment against the Appellant was obtained by the landowners on 30th December, 1967. At that time this application u/s 11 of the Act was pending. In view of this subsequent event an additional issue was framed by the Compensation Officer to the following effect:

Whether the Respondents have obtained the decree for ejectment of the applicant from the Assistant Collector 1st Grade (R.A.), Kasumpti, and if so, what is the effect of such a decree on these proceedings pending decision of the appeal filed against that decree in the court of the Collector, Mahasu? O.P.R.

An appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 30th December, 1967, which had been filed before the Collector was also dismissed and it is admitted by both the parties that a revision petition is still pending before the Financial Commissioner.

The Compensation Officer,-vide order, dated 28th September, 1968, held that the Appellant ceased to be a tenant of the disputed land from 30th December, 1967, and for this reason she could not acquire any proprietary rights. Thus the application of the Appellant u/s 11 of the Act was dismissed. An appeal was filed against the order of the Compensation Officer but the same was also dismissed by the District Judge, lahasu, on 25th July, 1969. A second appeal was filed in this Court and in second appeal the learned single Judge,-vide his order, dated 17th May, 1971, also held that the relationship of landlord and tenant had ceased to exist between the parties and for this reason the Appellant had no right to acquire proprietary rights in the disputed land, with the result that the appeal was dismissed and the orders of the Compensation Office., dated 28th September, 1968, and that of the District Judge,- (in appeal) dated 25th July, 1969, were affirmed. The Appellant feeling aggrieved from the judgment of the learned single Judge has filed this letters patent appeal.

We have heard Shri K.D. Sood, Advocate, for the Appellant and Shri Devinder Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondents.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant was a tenant of the disputed land on 4th April, 1967, when an application u/s 11 of the Act for acquisition of proprietary rights was filed before the Compensation Officer. He contended that any order of ejectment subsequent to the filing of this application has no bearing on the rights of the parties for the decision of the application u/s 11 of the Act. It was argued that the rights have to be adjudicated as on the date of the filing of the application. In support of his contention the learned Counsel relied upon Bhajan Lal Vs. State of Punjab and Others, and a Full Bench decision of this Court in 1972 M.S. 9 of , Smt. Savitri Devi v. Santa and Ors. decided on 23rd November, 1981.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that the decree for ejectment against the Appellant was passed on the ground that the Appellant had not paid the rent to the Respondents and that the Appellant was in arrears of rent. It was contended that the Supreme Court case of Bhajan Lal (supra) and the Full Bench case of Smt. Savitri Devi (supra) are distinguishable, and the findings of the learned single Judge are correct.

We have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and are of the view that the present case is fully covered by Bhajan Lal''s case (supra). In the judgment the Hon''ble Judges of the Supreme Court have considered the different provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, (hereinafter called the Punjab Act, 1953).

u/s 18 of the Punjab Act, 1953, certain tenants have been given rights to purchase the land of their landowners, while u/s 11 of the Act also the tenants have been given rights to acquire interests of the landowners.

The facts in Bhajan Lal''s case (supra) were that the owners had filed an application u/s 14A of the Punjab Act, 1953, seeking ejectment of the tenant from the land on the ground that the tenant had failed to pay the rent due from him to the owners. This application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector, but the Financial Commissioner remanded the case for a fresh decision vide his order, dated 8th January, 1962.

The tenant made an application on 20th February, 1961, for purchase of the land u/s 18 of the Punjab Act, 1953. This application was rejected by the Assistant Collector and the Collector, but the Financial Commissioner vide his order, dated 5th October, 1962, remanded the case for determination as to whether the tenant was in occupation of the land for six years before the date of the application.

After remand the Assistant Collector gave a finding that the tenant had a right to purchase the land and in the other application for ejectment ordered the eviction of the tenant due to default in paying the rent. Both these orders were passed on 30th April, 1964.

The Additional Commissioner on revision set aside the urder in favour of the tenant and dismissed his application for purchase of the land.

The Financial Commissioner on revision set aside the order of ejectment passed against the tenant and restored the order of the Collector by which the tenant had been held entitled to purchase the land.

The owner applied to the High Court of Punjab for setting aside the order of the Financial Commissioner, but his petition was dismissed and in these circumstances the matter was placed before the Supreme Court with special leave,

The Hon''ble Judges of the Supreme Court took the view that the tenant had a right to purchase the land on payment of the amount of compensation. It was held that the tenant had filed his proceedings for purchase of the land before the institution of the proceedings for ejectment. It was also held by their Lordships that the tenant had exercised his right to purchase the land and the right to purchase would not be defeated merely because on a date subsequent thereto an order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. Para 7 of the judgment reads as follows:

Shadi was a tenant prior to the date of the institution by Bhajan Lal of the proceeding in ejectment and he continued to remain a tenant till an order was passed by the Assistant Collector on April 30, 1964. But before that date Shadi had exercised his right to purchase the land and that right to purchase the land would not be defeated merely because on a date subsequent thereto an order in ejectment was passed against him. Shadi had, therefore, at the date when he initiated proceedings u/s 18 right to purchase the lands. By the subsequent order in ejectment made against him the statutory right of Shadi was not prejudicially affected.

In our view, the judgment in Bhajan Lal''s case (supra) is on all fours and the controversy in the present litigation in? fully covered by this judgment. In the present case the application u/s 11 of the Act had been filed on 4th September, 1967, while the order of ejectment against the Appellant was passed on 30th December, 1967. In these circumstances the right of the Appellant to acquire proprietary rights cannot be defeated by this subsequent order of ejectment. In view of the above discussion, we feel no necessity to refer to the Full Bench case of Smt. Savitri Devi (supra).

No other point was urged before us.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances this appeal is accepted and the orders of the learned single Judge as well as the District Judge and the Compensation Officer are set aside. The application of the Appellant for acquisition of proprietary rights has to be allowed. As rights of the Appellant to acquire proprietary rights have been established, therefore, the case is now sent back to the Compensation Officer to assess the amount of compensation, if any, and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law.