BHAJAN LAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 468, 469, 470, 471 and 472 of 1970, as common questions of law and facts are involved in them. To better appreciate the controversy between the parties, it will be useful to narrate the facts in Civil Writ Petn. No. 468 of 1970, Bhajan Lal v. The Financial Commr., Haryana.

(2.) On the application filed by Khiraj alias Khaira, respondent No. 5, who was a tenant on the lands of the petitioners. who are big land-owners, under S. 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act), the Collector allowed the purchase of land in dispute and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sirsa, assessed the compensation for the land to the tune of Rs. 592339 P. This was to be Paid by the tenant in 10 equal half yearly instalments. The petitioners filed an appeal against this order. The main plea raised was that the land could not be purchased by the tenant in view of the provisions of S. 19 of the Act as the land in dispute was an evacuee property and the proprietary rights had not been granted to the petitioners in that land till then. This appeal was dismissed on 5th of Aug. 1969. The petitioners moved a revision petition before the Commissioner. The learned Commissioner held that the petitioners have been conferred proprietary rights by the Rehabilitation Department and their case was not covered by S. 19 of the Act as the protection to the refugees was available only up to the year 1959. However, the Commissioner accepted the contentions of the petitioners that the price fixed by the Assistant Collector of the land based on the 10 years average price was wrong, because according to him the correct procedure for determining the value was that average price of each year should be worked out and then 10 years average should be worked out on that basis. The Commissioner made a reference to the Financial Commissioner that the case should be remanded to the Assistant Collector, Sirsa, so that he may fix the price of the disputed land in accordance with law. This recommendation by the Commissioner came up for decision before Shri B. S. Grewal, Financial Commissioner, Haryana. In the meantime, Mr. S. K. Chhibber, Financial Commissioner, Haryana, had given a decision in which he had interpreted the provisions of Section 18 (2) of the Act, This provision was brought to the notice of the Financial Commissioner, Mr. S. K. Chhibber in Mangli v. Mohinder Kumar, 1970 Pun LJ 8 held:- "The Collector has held that the average price calculated by the Assistant Collector has been artificially lowered down by lumping of the land that was subject of the transactions for 10 years on one side and by lumping the consideration money for these transactions on the other and then dividing the entire consideration money by the entire land. The Collector has, therefore, directed the Assistant Collector to recalculate the price and compensation due to the respondents and this direction has been upheld in appeal by the learned Commissioner. The contention of the petitioner is that certain mutations should have been excluded for purposes of calculating average price. The reasons given in support of this contention are vague and are, therefore, not satisfactory. The direction of the Collector, that the average price of land for each year of the ten years period should be worked out separately first in order to arrive at the exact price for the entire period, is in order. Any other basis would make the calculations meaningless............................., Shri B. S. Grewal, Financial Commissioner, did not accept this interpretation as he had earlier taken a different view in Lachhman Ram v. Ram Rikh, 1970 Pun LJ 152, wherein he has held:

(3.) Section 19 of the Act does not debar the purchases by the tenants because their applications have been filed after 1959.