NOOR HUSSAIN Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions involve the interpretation of council Orders No: 1234 of 1939, 290 -C of 1940 and 872 -C of 1940 and the affect of those orders on the rights of the parties litigating

(2.) SOME of the facts of the case are: that the land measuring 32 kanals 15 marlas covered by Survey No: 659 (23 Kl. 16 mls.) and Survey No. 661 (8 Kls. 19 mis.) belonging to the State situate in village Maheen Sarkar, tehsil Samba, was held as non -occupancy tenant by one Noor in, the predecessor -in -interest of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 774/83. Similarly the predecessor -in interest of the petitioner in Writ petition No. 1108/85 were stated to be in cultivating possession of the land measuring 54 kanals 5 marlas under survey Nos. 683 and 696 situated in the same village. It is submitted by the petitioners that the state Government with a view to better the lot of peasantry conferred proprietary rights on such of the non -occupancy tenants of the State land who were in possession thereof in Samvat year 1982 and prior to 1982 for not less than 15 years and also on such non -occupancy tenants who were in possession thereof for which the aforesaid Council orders were promulgated. The petitioners in both the writ petitions submit that they were entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Council Orders but wrongly deprived of the land which was allotted to the other non -official respondents. It is submitted that the respondent -authorities were under an obligation to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioners and their predecessor in interest of making the payment of the amount and production of the State subject certificate in terms of the aforesaid council orders before allotting the said land to any other person.

(3.) IN the counter -affidavits filed in the case it is submitted that the Government issued the orders to confer proprietory rights upon the tenants who were in possession of the land on the relevant date and satisfied the condition of the order at the relevant time. According to the terms of the Council Orders, the persons claiming their benefit were liable to production of state subject certificates and payment of the specified land revenue within the period specified therein. It is contended that contention of the petitioners that the payment of Nazarana and the production of State Subject certificate was subsequently dispensed with in erroneous. It is further contended that the tenants -at -will who did not satisfy the stipulated conditions, contained in the aforesaid council order, were not entitled at all to be registered as proprietors The petitioners or their predecessor -in -interest never opted to avail of the benefit under the aforesaid Council orders with the result that they were deprived of their benefits. Their rights, if any, in the land, stood extinguished and they were not entitled to the grant of any relief of this stage. It is urged that the grandfather of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 774/83 miserably filed to take advantage of the concessions and thereby faled to fulfill their prat of conditional offer made by the Government. According to the respondents, a tenant -at -will could secure proprietory rights on payment of 20 times of land revenue within the stipulated period and on production of State subject certificate,