Prem Chand Pandit, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of three writ petitions (Civil Writs Nos. 715, 716 and 1138 of 1963), which arise out of the same order, dated 24th April, 1963, passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab. Dharam Paul and others, who are the tenants, applied to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Fazilka, under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the purchase of the land in dispute. The landlords raised the following two preliminary objections: (1) Under the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Act, only such a tenant was competent to file an application for the purchase of the land under his tenancy, who had completed a continuous period of six years prior to the commencement of the Act. (2) Under the provisions of Section 19 -A of the Act, a tenant who either owned or held area beyond the permissible limit was not competent to purchase his tenancy until he divested himself of the area beyond the permissible limit.
(2.) AS regards objection No. 1, the same was overruled by the Assistant Collector, holding that though the wording of this section strictly construed might lead to the interpretation put by the landlords, yet, according to the practice of their Department, these applications were being entertained irrespective of the fact whether the tenants had completed a continuous period of six years at the time of the commencement of the Act. With regard to objection No. 2, it was held that the tenants could not hold more than the permissible area, but they could not give up any area till their applications under Section 18 of the Act were decided in their favour. They could, however, be called upon to file an affidavit to the effect that they would give up the excess area in the event of their applications being accepted. He, therefore, directed the tenants to file such affidavits. When the matter went in appeal to the Collector, he held that under the provisions of Section 18, the period of six years must be completed by the tenants at the time of the commencement of the Act. With regard to the second objection, his decision was that the status of the tenants had to be seen on the date when they made applications under Section 18 and if they were in possession of more than the permissible area on that date, they were not entitled to make such applications. As a result, the appeal of the landlords was accepted and it was held that the tenants were not entitled to purchase the land in dispute.
(3.) THIS order of the Collector was affirmed by the Additional Commissioner.;