Shamsher Bahadur, J. - (1.) THIS judgment, which will dispose of Civil Writ Nos. 2679 and 3798 of 1968, to challenge the same order of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, of 19th of January, 1968, dismissing the petition for revision of Nathu Ram, also called Nathu Singh, alias Hari Singh, calls first for a narration of events which led to the passing of the impugned order.
(2.) THIS Nathu Ram, son of Bahadur Chand, died on 26th of February, 1968, soon after the passing of the impugned order, dated 19th of January, 1968. Nathu Ram, besides leaving his own sons, daughters and widow, had three brothers, Lal Chand, Jas Ram and Hari Ram, who themselves and their sons on the one hand, and the sons and widow of Nathu Ram on the other, have brought these two petitions to challenge the order of the Financial Commissioner which is concerned only with the application for sale granted in favour of Sahi Ram, son of Dilsukh Ram, a tenant of Nathu Ram. The earliest order, to which reference may be made, is that of the Collector, Fazilka of 26th of December, 1960, dealing with the assess -ment of the surplus area of Nathu Singh alias Hari Ram of Mauza Khera in Fazilka Tehsil. According to this order, Nathu Ram is shown to be the owner of 43 standard acres and 2 1/2 units, none of which was reserved within the limits of the permissible area. An area measuring 13 standard acres and 2 1/2 units was declared surplus and this consisted of Khasra Nos. 1161 and 1170, all of which was 'nehri. Sahi Ram, who is a Respondent in these petitions, made an application on 17th of January, 1965, against Nathu Ram in respect of Khasra Nos. 337, 338, 340 and 389, under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act), for the purchase of this land of which he claimed to be in cultivating possession since Kharif, 1958. Asa Ram, brother of Sahi Ram, as a mortgagee of this land for Rs. 11,000 was impleaded in the application. Asa Ram made no objection to the purchase and made an appearance before the Assistant Collector but Nathu Ram remained absent and ex parte proceedings were taken against him. Both Lekh Raj Patwari and Sahi Ram were examined by the Assistant Collector and on a perusal of the Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris it was found that the Applicant had been cultivating the land for more than six years. An order in favour of the Applicant was, therefore, made under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act and he was directed to make the requisite payment of the sum of. Rs. 10,218.45 to Asa Ram, mortgagee in ten six -monthly instalments of Rs. 1,021.85. Against this order, which was passed on 31st May, 1965, Nathu Ram preferred an appeal under Section 80 of the Act. The record was gone into by the Collector Ferozepur, the appellate authority, and in the elaborate order of 14th December, 1965, it was found by him that the land measuring 22 Bighas in Khasra Nos. 337, 338, 440 and 489 did not form a part of the reserved area of Nathu Ram, who was its proprietor and had been in continuous cultivation of the tenant for a period of six years. These two essential requisites under Section 18 of the Act entitled the tenant to make an application for purchase which was rightly granted by the appropriate authority. The entire evidence bearing on the essential points, namely land being under the tenancy of Sahi Ram and not forming part of the reserved area of Nathu Ram was gone into and the finding of the revenue authority affirmed. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed with costs.
(3.) IN a revision petition filed by Nathu Ram, the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, in his order of 12th April, 1966, again affirmed the finding that the land in dispute formed part of the area of Nathu Ram and had been in cultivating possession of Sahi Ram for a period of more than six years, and the tenant was entitled to a purchase of this area measuring 22 Bighas. It was particularly mentioned in the order that the area claimed by the tenant Sahi Ram did not form part of the reserved area. Another point was raised before the Commissioner that there were certain co -sharers in the joint holding and they should have been impleaded in the proceedings for purchase of the land under Section 18 of the Act. In the words of the Commissioner: This plea too has no force. The Respondent was a tenant of the Petitioner alone and he had made the application to acquire the proprietary rights of the tenancy under the Petitioner. In the revenue records, in other words, Nathu Ram was shown as the proprietor and against him alone the application for purchase could lie;