MAHABIR Vs. PURAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions have been filed against orders of the Commissioner, Hisar Division dated 27.3.1995 in a purchase case under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Facts of the two cases are the same and therefore they are being decided through a single order.

(2.) FACTS are that two tenants namely Puran s/o Natha and Sheo Karan s/o Natha (predecessors of the present revision petitioners) were allowed to purchase their tenancy measuring 162K 3M and 51K 4M respectively vide orders of the Prescribed Authority dated 19.1.1971. An appeal against the above orders by the landowner was dismissed by the Collector on 22.7.1971. Later, vide orders dated 11.12.1974 the Financial Commissioner remanded these purchase cases to the Commissioner for deciding them after the proceedings in the surplus area case are completed. Proceedings of the surplus area case have now been completed with the orders of the Financial Commissioner dated 25.10.1989, and out of the total area of 180.81 O. As. of land 100 O. As. have been allowed to the landowner as his permissible area, 77.5 O. As. have been declared as TPA, 2.63 O. As. have been declared surplus and 0.68 O.As. were found to have been acquired by the State. The above areas are exactly the same as indicated in the original surplus order of the Collector dated 24.3.1961. When the purchase case of the two tenants was taken up again after the finalisation of the surplus area case, the Commissioner found that in view of the total area available and the area selected by the landowner as his permissible area there was no option but to reduce 5K 0M from the purchase application of Puran Chand son of Natha and 51K 4M from the purchase application of Sheo Karan son of Natha. Thus the first tenant has been deprived of 5K of area earlier allowed to be purchased by him vide order dated 19.1.1971, and the second tenant has been deprived of the total area of 51K 4M. This situation has arisen because in view of the total areas available, the landowner had to make his selection of permissible area from the area with the tenants. The Commissioner after having decided to reduce the areas as indicated above from the purchase allowed to the two tenants also observed that in case the respondent tenants are able to get any relief from the High Court, where they had gone against the orders of the Financial Commissioner dated 25.10.1989, the purchase orders can be suitably revised. The Commissioner also directed that the landowner will not transfer the above disputed areas.

(3.) IT had earlier come to notice that the Collector in his orders dated 22.7.1971 had mentioned the total area with the landowner as 195 O. As. and therefore the question arose where the remaining about 15 O. As. of area had gone. After persual of the record it has become clear that the number 195 O. As. as mentioned in the Collector's order is a mistake because it is without any basis. All along, right from 1961 the total area of land with the landowner has been mentioned as 181 O. As.