- (1.) Ganpat Singh has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the orders passed by the revenue authorities, which are annexed with the petition as Annexures 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F'.
(2.) It is alleged in the writ petition that tenants Lachhman and Smt. Briji, respondent Nos. 5 and 6, filed an application under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purchase of land measuring 89 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 682 min situate in village Kairu II. The Assistant Collector, Bhiwani, respondent No. 4, dismissed that application holding that the petitioner was a small landowner, vide his order dated 16th July, 1963, copy of which is attached with the petition as Annexure 'A'. Dissatisfied by the order of the Assistant Collector, the tenants filed appeal before the Collector, who accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for a fresh decision as to whether the petitioner-landlord was a small landowner or a big landowner. The order of the Collector is dated 2nd January, 1964, copy of which is attached with the petition as Annexure 'B'. The landowner redecided the matter and allowed the purchase application holding that the petitioner is a big landowner. The order of the Assistant Collector is dated 23rd June, 1964, copy of which is attached with the petition as Annexure 'C'. Against this order the landlord-petitioner filed appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed vide his order dated 20th January, 1965, copy of which is attached with the petition as Annexure 'D'. The landlord-petitioner also filed revision petitions before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, which met the same fate. The order of the Commissioner is dated 28th January, 1966 and that of the Financial Commissioner is dated 19th November, 1966. Copies of these orders are attached with the petition as annexure 'E' and 'F' respectively. It is against these orders that the present petition has been filed.
(3.) Mr. Balwant Singh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the ingredients of Section 18 of the Act are not satisfied and hence the impugned orders are not legal and are liable to be set aside. No return has been filed either by tenant-respondent Nos. 5 and 6 or by the State. Mr. Ram Rang, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6, however, argued that the ingredients of Section 18 of the Act are fully satisfied. I have perused the impugned orders and I find that all the ingredients of Section 18 are not satisfied. Section 18 of the Act reads as under :- "18. Rights of certain tenants to purchase land. - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, usage or contract, a tenant of a landowner other than a small landowner, - (i) who has been in continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy for a minimum period of six years, or (ii) who has been restored to his tenancy under the provisions of this Act and whose periods of continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy immediately before ejectment and immediately after restoration of his tenancy together amounts to six years or more, or (iii) who was ejected from his tenancy after the 14th day of August, 1947, and before the commencement of this Act, and who was in continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy for a period of six years or more immediately before his ejectment, 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 case of a tenant falling within clause (i) or clause (ii), at any time, and in the case of a tenant falling within clause (iii), within a period of one year from the date of commencement of this Act : Provided that no tenant referred to in this sub-section shall be entitled to exercise any such right in respect of the land or any portion thereof if he had sublet the land or the portion, as the case may be, to any other person during any period of his continuous occupation, unless during that period the tenant was suffering from a legal disability or physical infirmity, or, if a woman was a widow or was unmarried : Provided further that if the land intended to be purchased is held by another tenant who is entitled to pre-empt the sale under the next preceding section, and who is not accepted by the purchasing tenant, the tenant in actual occupation shall have the right to pre-empt the sale." From the reading of this section it is plain that before an application for purchase of land by a tenant can be allowed, the Assistant Collector is to be satisfied, firstly, whether the landowner of whose land the tenant has filed the application for purchase is not a small landowner or a big land-owner. This finding is, however, recorded in the impugned order (Annexure 'C'). The second ingredient which is to be satisfied is whether the tenants are in continuous possession of the land in dispute for a minimum period of six years, and, the third ingredient is that the land to be purchased does not form part of the reserved area of the landowner. No finding is given by the authorities whether the land of which the application for purchase was made does not form part of the reserved or the select area of the landlord-petitioner. Mr. Ram Rang invited my attention to the Commissioner's order (Annexure 'E'), wherein the learned Commissioner has observed as under :- "I have carefully gone through the facts of the case. Ganpat Singh had not reserved any land for himself in the year 1953 nor did he select his permissible area in 1958, as provided in the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules. A certified copy of Form 'E' as adduced by the petitioner before the Collector along with a certified copy of Form 'C' is dated 7.5.1959, and it cannot be regarded as having been filed within time prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The selection made by him on 7.5.1959, therefore, cannot operate against the tenants who are entitled to purchase land under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The present revision petition is, therefore, without any force and is accordingly dismissed." From the observations made by the learned Commissioner, it is clear that the authorities did not give any finding whether the land in dispute for which the purchase application is given by the tenants, does not form part of the reserved or select are of the landowner. Rather the learned Commissioner has observed that since the certified copy of Form 'E' as adduced by the petitioner before the Collector along with a certified copy of Form 'C' is dated 7th May, 1959, it cannot be regarded as having been filed within the time prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and, therefore, the selection made by the petitioner on 7th May, 1959, cannot operate against the tenant-respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who are entitled to purchase land under Section 18 of the Act. This view of the learned Commissioner is obviously wrong. The clear wording of Section 18 shows that the land should not form part of the reserved or the select area of the landowner and merely that Form 'E' was submitted in the year 1959 cannot deprive the landowner of his right to select area for himself. The provisions regarding the reservation or selection of permissible area are contained in Sections 5, 5-A, 5-B and 5-C of the Act. In Section 5-B(2) it is clearly laid down that if a landowner fails to select his permissible area in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), then the prescribed authority may, subject to the provisions of Section 5-C select the parcel or parcels of land which such person is entitled to retain under the provisions of the Act. It was incumbent upon the authorities to select a permissible area for the landowner in accordance with law and thereafter decide the application for purchase of the land by the tenants, which they have filed. Mr. Ram Rang also relied upon a Division Bench authority of this Court, which is Jot Ram v. The Financial Commissioner and others, 1966 PunLJ 252. But this authority is of no help to him as according to this authority three ingredients as mentioned in Section 18 of the Act are to be satisfied before an application for purchase of land by a tenant can be allowed. Similar view is taken in Jee Ram and others v. Gobind and others,1971 PunLJ 766, and Kundan Lal v. State of Punjab and others, 1975 PunLJ 509 Mr. Ram Rang says that the area could be selected only under Section 5-C of the Act. There is no controversy about this. The authorities have to select the permissible area in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 5-C of the Act. He says that the tenants are in continuous occupation of the land in dispute and that they have become owners of that land. No doubt, their purchase application was allowed, but this order is not going to disturb their possession. They will continue to remain in possession of that land.;