- (1.) The writ petition is at the instance of the landlord who challenges the orders passed by the authorities constituted under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 that allowed the application filed by the erstwhile tenant of an agricultural land seeking for permission to deposit the balance of the purchase money payable under Section 18 of the Act as a condition precedent to securing a sale deed in the manner contemplated under the Act. The act of the tenant came at a time when the landlord had filed petitions for eviction for nonpayment of batai (rent) on a plea that on an earlier agreement entered into between them providing for a transfer of property by the landlord to the tenant became ineffective on account of the default on the part of the tenant in paying the entire sale consideration. Some more facts would require to be stated to consider the legal underpinnings of the controversy.
(2.) Admittedly, the tenant had been holding the landlord's land on lease in respect of the agricultural land. He had filed an application under Section 18 of the Act seeking for the purchase rights. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab (now Haryana) and others Vs. Amar Singh and others, 1974 PunLJ 74 required the proof of the fact that the person was entitled to purchase land under Section 18, having been lawfully inducted on the land as a tenant, that the property in respect of which the petition was filed, was outside the landlord's permissible area and within the tenant's permissible area and the further fact about the bona fides of the eligibility for purchase. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would state that when the petition was filed, the parties had entered into a compromise on 19.03.1969 under the terms of which the price was determined at Rs. 3000/- per acre for a land measuring 145 kanals 6 marlas. On the same date Rs. 29,487.50 was paid as a part of the total consideration and the rest of the amount was to be paid by the tenant at the time of mutation and till such an event, the tenant was bound to pay 1/3rd batai. The petitioner's plea is that the total value of the land came to Rs. 54,487.50 and an application had been moved by the tenant before the Assistant Collector on 06.07.1982 requesting that the balance of amount be got deposited and the mutation to be sanctioned in his favour. The Assistant Collector 1 st Grade, Naraingarh dismissed the application on 20.01.1984 holding that it was a matter for adjudication before the Civil Court. He held that no agreement had been produced which could show the terms of payment of the installments and no time limit having been fixed for the payment, the application which was filed in the year 1983 was barred by limitation. The appeal filed by tenant was dismissed but in a further revision to the Commissioner, the matter was remanded for entering of mutation for payment of the balance of amount. This order of the Commissioner had been challenged before the Financial Commissioner who upheld the decision the Commissioner by his decision dated 19.07.1989 and held that the ownership of the land had passed to the tenant on the very day when the order was passed on 19.03.1969 when the portion of the sale consideration had been paid. He directed the deposit of the balance of the amount within one month with the Assistant Collector if the landlord would not accept it. These orders of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are now challenged by the landlord before this Court.
(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would state that in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Amar Singh's case referred to above, it was necessary that the Assistant Collector had entered on the rights of the tenants before accepting the compromise and their having been no proper adjudication on the entitlement of the tenant, the compromise itself was not valid. It was the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the very fact that the tenant was directed to pay 1/3 rd batai even after the date of compromise showed the jural relationship of landlord and tenant to be continued from the date of compromise and the landlord had actually filed several suits and petitions for recovery of the balance and having forced the landlord to resort to an action for eviction, the tenant has moved the application before the Assistant Collector for deposit more than a decade after the compromise. The Senior Counsel would argue that the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act itself was repealed and the properties being situate in Haryana, the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 had come into operation. The learned Senior Counsel would refer to Section 33 of the Act of 1972 which repeals the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act except when the proceedings were actually pending under the Act. The Senior Counsel would argue that after the compromise decree was passed, there was no such proceeding which was pending and after the coming into force of the Haryana Act, there was no scope for any tenant whose case was not pending to have any relief under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The rights of tenants are governed independently by other provisions and the Assistant Collector lacked the jurisdiction to entertain any petition from the tenant.;