BHAJAN LAL Vs. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners Bhajan Lal and his son Het Ram in these proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution have challenged the legality of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 5th of October, 1962. The view taken by the Financial Commissioner in the impugned order in agreement with the Commissioner of Jullundur Division is that the tenant in order to establish his right to purchase land under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has merely to prove his own continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy for a period of 6 years, irrespective of the change of landlords during this period.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the point, the relevant provisions of Section 18 may be reproduced:

(3.) NOW , under Sub -section (8) of Section 2 of the Act, it is mentioned that 'land' and all other terms used, but not defined in this Act, shall have the same meaning as are assigned to them in Punjab Tenancy Act. If reference is made to the Punjab Tenancy Act, we find that Sub -section (7) of Section 4 defines 'tenant' and 'landlord' to include the predecessors and successors -in interest of a tenant and landlord respectively. The Petitioners are, therefore, no more than successors -in -interest of the previous landlords and they do not acquire any new rights as against the tenants. The statutory requirement of occupation for a continuous period of six years is only for the tenant and cannot be extended by implication to refer to the continuous ownership for that period of a landlord. In my view, the interpretation put by the Financial Commission owner is in accord with the cannons of construction and is calculated to promote the objects of the legislation. There is no reason to interfere in writ proceedings and I would, accordingly, dismiss this petition. There would, however, be no order as to costs.