- (1.) This is a petition filed on behalf of Mohd. Hayat Khan and Mohd. Umar Khan, petitioners, against the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, who had allowed the purchase application of respondent No. 4.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are land-owners of village Khajuri Jatil, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hissar. The petitioners are big land-owners. The petitioners had neither reserved nor selected the permissible area. The Collector had not selected this land under Section 5-B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter called the Act). Amarya, who was a tenant under the petitioners, had filed an application for the purchase of this land which was allowed on 10th January, 1967 by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hissar. It will be pertinent to note at this stage that when this application was made and also when the same was decided, the permissible area of the petitioners had not been determined. The purchase application was allowed by the authorities without first determining the permissible area of the petitioners-landowners. The appeal filed by the petitioners against this order was allowed on 29th June, 1967 by the Collector, Fatehabad. However, the Commissioner on a revision by the tenant reversed this order and set aside the order of the Collector and restored the order dated 10th January, 1967, passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hissar. The petitioners filed a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner to the Financial Commissioner. This was also dismissed. Dissatisfied with these orders, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
(3.) Mr. Ram Rang, the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of a decision in Jee Ram and others v. Gobind and others,1971 PunLJ 766, has contended that the purchase application by the tenant could not be allowed in this case as permissible area of the petitioners had not been reserved by the petitioners. The Collector had also not selected the permissible area for them under Section 5-B(2) of the Act. The learned counsel also contended that the authorities had to keep the application of the tenant pending and had to first decide the case of the surplus area of the petitioners and only then they could decide the case of the tenant for purchase from the surplus area of the petitioners. Their Lordships in Jee Ram's case have held : "When an application is made under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act for purchase and there has been no reservation, the first thing that will have to be done by the Collector is to make a reservation for the landowner under Section 5-B. It is after the reservation has been made that the tenant will be entitled to purchase the land which has been declared surplus and of which he is the tenant provided he satisfies the remaining requirements of Section 18." So, the orders allowing the purchase application passed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are clearly illegal. I accept this petition, set aside the orders of the above Revenue Authorities and remand the case to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hissar. However, it is made clear that this purchase application will be kept pending by the Assistant Collector till the surplus area of the petitioners is determined by the Collector under Section 5-B(2) of the Act. The Assistant Collector for this purpose will send the file first to the Collector to determine the surplus are and after that he shall determine whether Amarya, respondent No. 4, is entitled to purchase the surplus area. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition accepted.;