- (1.) In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner impugns an order, dated the 19th September, 1964 (Annexure 'C') of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, by which he accepted the landowner's revision petition and dismissed Natha Ram petitioner's application under Section 22 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for acquiring proprietary rights in the agricultural land.
(2.) The material facts admitted by both the parties before me are as follows : Natha Ram made a petition under Section 22 of the Act for acquiring proprietary rights in the land in dispute, measuring 9 Bighas and 9 Biswas, situate in the revenue estate of village Niaz Alipur, against the landowner, Udhey Bhan, Respondent 2, on the ground that the applicant or his father were in continuous possession of this land as tenants for a period of 12 years preceding the 18th November, 1953, the date on which the President's Act, i.e., Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1953 (Act No. 8 of 1953), came into force. The application was accepted by the Assistant Collector First Grade by his order, dated the 12th February, 1963, who held that though in the Khasra Girdawari relating of Kharif 1947, and the periods, 1948-49, 1949-50, the land was shown to be in the occupation of other persons as tenants, these entries were incorrect because, in fact, the applicant was in cultivating possession of the land throughout since 1999 BK. (corresponding to 1943 A.D). Landowner Udey Bhan appealed to the Collector who dismissed it by an order, dated the 28th June, 1963 (Annexure 'B') and upheld the finding of the Assistant Collector to the effect, that though in 1947, 1948-49 and 1949-50, Sagroo and Jamini Sahai were shown as chakoitadars of the land in the revenue records, in fact, the entries showed that Sita, father of Natha applicant, actually cultivated it as a sub-tenant under the chakotadars. Consequently, the Collector held that Natha or his father could not be treated as a trespasser strictly. In revision instituted by the landowner, the Financial Commissioner has held :- (a) That in Kharif 1947 the land was in the cultivating possession of Sagroo and Jaimini Sahai. In 1948-49, it was on lease with Jamini Sahai, and in 1949-50 it was on lease with Dayal Singh, who was holding it under the Custodian, and that during these years the applicant's father was occupying it as a sub-tenant of the lessee under the Custodian. Thus, observes the Financial Commissioner, the eligibility of the tenants has not been established. (b) The land was acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and under Section 12(2) of that Act it vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. That meant that whatever rights the tenants may have had were completely extinguished. (c) Under Rule 58 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, an allottee of agricultural land is entitled to vacant possession of such land. This was only legal, because otherwise the displaced cultivators would not be able to cultivate the land allotted to them. Accordingly, in this case also, the Custodian allotted the land to the petitioner after evicting the tenant, and vacant possession was given to the allottee vide Exhibit D.1 (7.6.1953). (d) Section 21 of the Act exempted evacuee lands from the application of the Act. Section 51(b) of the Act also similarly excludes lands vested in the Central Government from its operation, which had not been transferred to the allottees either on permanent or quasi-permanent basis. In the result, the Financial Commissioner not only accepted the revision petition of the landlord and dismissed the tenant's application under Section 22 of the Act, but also made an observation that 'the petitioner is entitled to vacant possession of the land allotted to him.'
(3.) The first contention of Mr. P.S. Daulta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the learned Financial Commissioner has, in setting aside the Collector, exercised jurisdiction which did not vest in him, inasmuch as he held that during Kharif 1947 and the years 1948-49 and 1949-50, Natha petitioner or his father was only a sub-tenant and, as such, not eligible for acquiring proprietary rights under Section 22 of the Act.;