RAMESHWAR RAMESHWAR Vs. JOT RAM:JOT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two batches of appeals stem from the same judgment but raise two different questions of law under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Punjab Act X of 1953) (for short the Act), the forensic focus being turned on two different facets of Section 18 of the act. The first set of appeals relates to the right of the tenants to purchase the ownership of the common landlord, Teja, while the second set of appeals turns on principles of compensation awardable to the landlord pursuant to the vesting of ownership in the tenant.

(2.) Teja, the landlord, was admittedly a large land-owner under whom there were three tenants. Each of them applied for purchase of ownership under Section 18 (1) of the Act. The Assistant Collector who is the primary authority, found them eligible, fixed the price and the installments of payment and they duly de- posited the first installment The statutory consequence of such deposit was that title to the property vested in the tenants on that date. All these events took place in the early '60s. Had the scheme of agrarian reform in the Punjab been simple and had the virtue of early finality so necessary in such a measure been present the law would have operated with speed and changed the rural landscape radically, instead of provoking a heavy run of never-ending litigation. Section 24 of the Act has had this unwitting effect. Too many tiers of quasi-judicial review, too long at each deck and in a system, which is slow moving, tempt disappointed parties to litigate to the disastrous end. Such a statutory creation, calculated to give ultimate justice, is like a Frankenstein's monster the very prolonged over-judicialised litigative engine, bleeding justice to death. A legislature, with care and concern for the agrarian community should be vigilant enough to design a quick and competent legal engineering project-absent by contrast in most land-reform laws blessing the rural poor. And it is noteworthy that legal battles are fought largely before Collectors, Commissioners and Financial Commissioner then the writ chapter begins. This litigation, it is worthy of note, began before the Collector in 1961/62. A fundamental assessment of the comparative economic and social costs of multi-decked determination procedure would have induced the legislature to reduce institutional levels of adjudication. This is by the way, although we strongly recommend that the legislatures do pay serious attention to producing an early termination to land reform re- ordering by a mammoth and immediate decision-making instrumentality.

(3.) Shortly put and shorn of details, the simple contention of the appellants in these appeals is that although their propositus Teja was a large landowner on his death his heirs the present appellants, became entitled to shares and, in this process of fragmentation they became 'small landowners' within the meaning of S. 2(2) of the Act. This event occurred after the tenants had been found entitled to purchase from the land-owner the lands held by them and after they had deposited the first installment as set down in S. 18 (4). The plea is that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding and, therefore, if there is a change of circumstances in the landlord's ownership during the pendency of the appeal, resulting in his legal representatives becoming ' small landowners', the tenants will be disentitled to purchase the land. Of course, a tenant of a 'small landowner' has no right to purchase the land. But in the present case, the landowner admittedly was a large landowner at the time the tenants applied for purchase. Section 18 (1) reads, dropping the irrelevant portions, thus: