D.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and is directed against the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the petition of respondents 1 to 3 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and setting aside the order of the Subordinate authorities allowing the tenant's applications for purchase under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge has written a very elaborate judgment and it is not necessary in the present appeal to go into very minute details because we are entirely agreeing with the decision of the learned Single Judge. The salient facts of the case are that one Ram Singh was the owner of the land measuring 30.4 standard acres, Technically he would be a big landowner because the land in his possession exceeded the permissible limit by 0.4 standard acres. Ram Singh sold 94 Kanals 13 Marias of land to Jai Kauri and Kesar on the 31st October, 1957. He sold another piece of land measuring 8 Kanals to Gobind on the same day. Biru admittedly was a tenant of the land in dispute. He is dead and is now represented by his legal representatives. He made an application under Section 18 of the Act for purchase of the land forming the subject -matter of his tenancy on the ground that his landowner was a big landowner. The land of which he was the tenant is the land which has been sold by Ram Singh to Jal Kauri, Kesar and Gobind. This application was allowed and all attempts on the part of the vendees of Jai Kauri failed right upto the Financial Commissioner excepting that there was a slight modification that part of the land was excluded from the purchase application. The vendees being dissatisfied with the revenue authorities under the Act moved an application in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge has allowed this application holding that till the reserved area of the landowner was determined, the tanant's' application under Section 18 could not be entertained because Section 18 is specific and provides that "the tenant shall be entitled to purchase from the landowner the land so held by him but not included In the reserved area of the landowner," In the present case, there was no determination of the reserved area of the landowner. The only surplus area left would be 0.4 standard acres and this is a very insignificant part as compared to the area in possession of Biru. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the proper course to adopt was to determine the reserved area of the landowner and thereafter entertain the application of the tenant under Section 18. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the purchase application of the tenant The tenant has come up in appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
(3.) MR . Sarin, learned counsel for the tenant, in the first instance, contended that admittedly all conditions of Section 18 are satisfied. It is also true that there is no determination of reserved area. According to the learned counsel, the mere fact that the landowner is a big landowner is enough to warrant the applications being allowed.;