Sahib Ram: Lachmi Narain vs Financial Commissioner, Punjab

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1970 Supreme(SC) 77

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. M. SHELAT AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
Saheb Ram etc., Petitioners
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Chandigarh, and others, Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 116 and 190 to 214 of 1968 and Civil Appeals Nos. 2356 and 2357 of 1966, and 1508 to 1514 and 1471 of 1968, D/- 24-2-1970.
Writ Petns. Nos. 116 and 190 to 214 of 1968.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2356 and 2357 of 1966 and 1508 to 1514 and 1471 of 1968.
Lachhmi Narain and others, Appellants
Versus
The Financial Commissioner. Punjab, Chandigarh and others, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
M/s. S. K. Mehta sad K. L. Mehta Advocates of M/s. K. L. Mehta and Co. and Miss Sona Bhatiani, Advocate, for Petitioners (in all the Petns.) and Appellants (in C. As. 1508 to 1514 of 1968); Mr. M. E. C. Agarwala, Advocate for Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 (In W. P. No. 116 of 1968) and Respondent No. 5 (In W. Ps. Nos. 191 and 209 of 1968 and C. As Nos. 1508 to 1514 and 1471 of 1968; Mr. S. V. Gupte, Senior Advocate (Mr. J. C. Talwar, Advocate, with him), for Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 (In W. Ps. Nos. 190 and 201 of 1968), Respondent No. 5 (In W. Ps. Nos. 192 to 200, 202, 203 and 210 to 213 of 1968 and Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 in W. P. No. 203 of 1968); Mr. B. R. L. Iyengar, Senior Advocate (M/s. S. K. Mehta and K L. Mehta, Advocates of M/s. K. L. Mehta and Co. with him), for Appellants (In C. A. 2356 of 1966 and C. A. No. 147 of 1968)- Mr. N. L. Dhingra, Advocate and M/s. S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, Advocates of M/s K. L. Mehta and Co., for Appellants (In C. A. No 2357 of 1966), Mr. Dipak Dutt Chaudhury, Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (In C. As. Nos. 2356 and 2357 of 1966).

Advocates:
B.R.L.Iyengar, DIPAK DATTA CHAUDHURI, E.C.AGARWAL, J.C.TALVAR, K.L.Mehta, N.L.DHINGRA, S.K.MEHTA, S.V.Gupta, SANA BHATIANI

Headnote:
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 - Section 18 (1) - Land - Tenants - Possession - Respondents 2 and 3, who are tenants under appellant landowner, in this appeal, filed before Assistant Collector, I Grade, an application under S. 18 (1) of Act for purchase from their landlord 19 acres and 7 kannals of land comprised in their tenancy - Their case was that they had been in continuous occupation of land comprised in their tenancy for a minimum period of six years and, as such, they were entitled to purchase land - Their claim was resisted by appellant land-owner on ground that it was only those tenants who had completed a continuous period of six years of tenancy prior to commencement of Act who were entitled to purchase land under Section 18 (1) of Act and as applicants did not satisfy that test, application was not maintainable - Applicants challenged this order of Assistant Collector by an appeal taken before Collector - Whether scheme of Act indicates whether six years period should have been completed on date when Act came into force – Held, distinction made regarding period within which these two categories can exercise their right, clearly indicates intention of Legislature to contrary - It stands to reason that tenants coming under clauses (i) and (ii) who are in actual possession of land have been given option either to continue as tenants and pay rent or to exercise their right to purchase land at any time - While coming to a tenant who satisfies requirements of cl. (iii) of S. 18 (1) Legislature has taken care to see that those types of tenants are made to take a decision to purchase land within shortest possible time so that other peoples rights may not be jeopardized - Court are of opinion that in order to claim a right of purchase as against landowner under Section 18 (1) (i) of Act, minimum period of six years should have been completed at time when application for purchase by tenant is made and it is not necessary that he should have been a tenant of land - Provided other conditions are satisfied, such a tenant will be entitled to purchase land - Writ petitions and appeals dismissed.

Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J.: - The common question that arises for consideration in all these writ petitions filed under Art. 32 and the civil appeals, on certificates granted by the High Court, is whether a tenant, in order to claim the right of purchase as against the landowner, under Section 18 (1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Act X of 1953) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), should have been in continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy for a minimum period of six years, on the date when the Act came into force (April 15, 1953), or on the date when he files the application for purchase to the concerned authority under the Act. A subsidiary point also arises for consideration viz, whether the person who claims the right to purchase, should have been a tenant on the date when the Act came into force.

2. The circumstances under which these writ petitions and appeals arose, may be briefly stated.

3. We shall first take up for consideration Civil Appeal No. 2356 of 1966.

4. Respondents 2 and 3, who are the tenants under the appellant landowner, in this appeal, filed on January 10, 1961 before the Assistant Collector, I Grade, Fazilka, an application under S. 18 (1) of the Act for purchase from their landlord 19 acres and 7 kannals of land comprised in their tenancy. Their case was that they had been in continuous occupation of the land comprised in their tenancy for a minimum period of six years and, as such, they were entitled to purchase the land. Their claim was resisted by the appellant land-owner on the ground that it was only those tenants who had completed a continuous period of six years of tenancy prior to the commencement of the Act who were entitled to purchase the land under Section 18 (1) of the Act and as the applicants did not satisfy that test, the application was not maintainable. The Assistant Collector, by his order dated March 29, 1961 overruled the objection of the land-owners and held that the application filed by the tenants was maintainable as similar purchase applications had been entertained without regard to any date of completion of six years of continuous tenancy and in this view the matter was directed to be posted for further hearing. The applicants challenged this order of the Assistant Collector by an appeal taken before the Collector, Ferozepore. The Collector, by order dated June 9, l961 reversed the order of the Assistant Collector and held that no tenant who had not been in continuous possession for six years on the commencement of the Act could apply, under Section 18 (1) of the Act, for purchasing the property and that the six year period should have been completed at the time the Act came into force. In this view he held that the application filed by the tenants was not maintainable.

5. The tenants carried the matter in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, who by his order dated December 14. 1962, agreed with the Collector and dismissed the appeal. The tenants went in revision before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, who by his order dated April 24,1963 reversed the orders of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner held that the right of purchase under Section 18 (1) of the Act could be exercised by a tenant whose tenancy existed on the date of the commencement of the Act and who has been in continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy for a minimum period of six years on the date of the application for the purchase of the land and the land has not been included in the reserved area of the land-owner. Thee Financial Commissioner further held that a tenant who, on the date of the application for purchase, owns or holds land exceeding the permissible area will not be entitled to purchase the land under his tenancy. After setting aside the orders of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner, the matters were remanded to the Assistant Collector, Fazilka, for a decision on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document