Judgment

SEN, J. :- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 80 of 1967 dated September 9, 1969 upholding the judgment and order of a learned single Judge dated July 27, 1967. It follows the earlier common judgment delivered by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 357-359 of 1467. By the judgment. the learned single Judge allowed three writ petitions filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who are purchasers from the original landholder Kulwant Rai and have been held to be mere benamidars in Civil Suit No, 23 of 1967 decided on January 6, 1967 brought by respondents Nos. 3 to 14, the legal heirs of the aforesaid Kulwant Rai.

2. The arguments in the appeal mainly revolved around the question as to the applicability of the rule laid down by this Court in Rameshwar v. Jot Ram (1976) 1 SCR 847 to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Rameshwars case. this Court held that the death of the large landholder Teja during the pendency of the appeal before the Financial Commissioner upon the happening of which event inheritance opened resulting in his legal heirs becoming small landholders. had not the effect to stultify the rights acquired by his tenants who had applied for purchase of their holdings under S. 18(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 and who, pursuant to the purchase order made by the Prescribed Authority, had already made the deposit of the first instalment of the purchase price as required under S. 18(4)(a) and had thereupon by the legal fiction contained in clause (b) thereof, to be deemed to have become the owners of the land since they had acquired a vested right to the grant of relief on the day they made the applications under S. 18(1). At the conclusion of the hearing, the case was adjourned to enable the parties to explore the possibility of a settlement because it seemed that the decision in Rameshwars case was not really applicable to this case. Although learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 3 to 14 signified the willingness of his clients to accept the terms suggested which were fair and reasonable, learned counsel for the appellant kept on asking for adjournments. Despite repeated opportunities the parties did not reach any settlement. As there has been no settlement, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits.

3. It appears that against the common judgment of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 357-359 of 1967. three special leave petitions were filed in this Court viz. 572-573 of 1969 and they were all dismissed in limine on August 21, 1970. That being so, the present appeal has become infructuous. The High Court had disposed of Letters Patent Appeal No. 80 of 1967 in terms of the main judgment which has now become final.

4. Even apart from the above, there are no merits in the appeal. Admittedly, Harditta Ram the predecessor, in. title of the appellants had made the application for purchase under S. 18(1) of the Act without impleading Kulwant Rai, the original landowner, the predecessor, in- title of respondents Nos. 3 to 14. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Assistant Collector (Surplus) who is the Prescribed Authority under the Act, the aforesaid Kulwant Rai died on August 22, 1960 and on October 13, 1960 respondents Nos. 3 to 14 being the legal heirs of Kulwant Rai made an application to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings and that application of theirs was allowed by the Assistant Collector on November 8, 1960. The Assistant Collector however on February 23, 1961 struck off the names of respondents Nos. 3 to 14 from the array of respondents on the ground that they were not necessary parties to the proceedings. On the same day, he allowed the purchase application of Harditta. Ram the predecessor, in title of the appellants against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 Madan Lal and Rajender Kumar, the transferees from Kulwant Rai Both of them were cl