- (1.) Civil Writ Petition No. 318 of 1972 (Balwant Ram V. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others) and Civil Writ Petition No. 361 of 1972 (Kulwant Ram deceased represented by Gurdev Ram and others V. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others) will be disposed of vide this common judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved in them.
(2.) Balwant Ram and Kulwant Ram were tenants of Mahant Bhan Singh chela Mahat Chanan Singh, resident of village Harike Kalan, Tehsil Muktsar, District Ferozepur. Being old tenants they filed applications under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on December 18, 1968, for purchase of the lands comprised in their respective tenancies. They pleaded in these applications that the lands sought to be purchased were not included in the reserved area of Mahant Bhan Singh, they had been cultivating the lands for the last more than 6 years and as such they were entitled to purchase these lands. The landowner contested these applications on the ground that the tenants had not been in occupation of the land in dispute for a period of six years; the land belonged to the Dera and not to the Mahant and the land in dispute had been reserved by the landowner. The Assistant Collector framed the following four issues :- (1) Is the land in dispute owned by a Dera ? (2) If issue No. 1 is proved, then, is the petitioner entitled to purchase it, if so on what price ? (3) Is the petitioner cultivating the land in dispute as tenant-at-will for six years ? (4) Is the land in dispute included in the reserved area ? The parties led evidence. The petitioner-tenants examined Jaswant Singh Patwari and Amar Chand, Reader to the Naib Tehsildar (Surplus), Muktsar. Jaswant Singh stated that the petitioner-tenants had been cultivating the land as tenants-at-will under Mahant Bhan Singh for more than 6 years and Mahant Bhan Singh was a big landowner in the year 1952-53. He owned 78 Standard Acres and 3 Units of the land even in the year 1967-68. He also clarified that new numbers had been given to the land in dispute. Amar Chand stated that the land in dispute was the surplus area of Mahant Bhan Singh and the same had not been reserved by him. In the meantime, during the pendency of these purchase applications Bhan Singh, the landowner, filed two ejectment applications under Section 14-A(i) of the Act, against the present petitioner-tenants for their ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent and non-cultivation of land in the manner customary in the locality. These applications were filed on March 25, 1970. The Assistant Collector tried to purchase applications and the ejectment applications simultaneously. By his orders dated July 28, 1970, he dismissed the purchase applications filed by the two petitioners holding that as the case regarding the determination of the reserved/surplus area of Bhan Singh, the landowner, was still pending, the purchase applications could not be allowed. He allowed the ejectment applications filed by Bhan Singh, the landowner.
(3.) Dissatisfied with the orders of the Assistant Collector dismissing their purchase applications and allowing the applications for ejectment filed by the landowner, the petitioner-tenants filed appeals to the Collector. The Collector dismissed the appeals of the purchase cases, holding that since the tenants had been ordered to be ejected the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had been snapped and the tenants had no locus standi to make the purchase applications. He also observed that even if the purchase applications had been allowed and later the tenants had been ordered to be ejected, though on the same day, the tenants still shall not be entitled to purchase the land in dispute. However, the Collector did not affirm the findings of the Assistant Collector that the purchase applications have to be dismissed because the surplus area case of the landowner had not been decided till then. The Collector also dismissed the appeals in the ejectment proceedings.;