Asa Ram vs Gopal and others

B.S. Yadav, J.

The facts giving rise to this second appeal are very short. Jitender Singh alias Yatinder Singh (defendant No. 1) was a big landowner. Gopal plaintiff was a tenant under him on the land described in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint. He filed an application under section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short the Act) for purchase of the land under his tenancy and the said application was granted on 26th September, 1964. The price of the land was fixed at Rs. 16828.50 which was to be paid by Gopal in ten equal six monthly instalments. Gopal regularly deposited the instalments. The last deposit was made on 21st January, 1969. All these instalments so deposited, were withdrawn by the landowner. Thus Gopal had acquired ownership rights in the land, and as such he was allowed to purchase it. In the meantime consolidation proceedings took place in the village and in lieu of the land purchased by him, the suit land was allotted to him. However, as there was some delay in recording Gopal as owner in the revenue papers, the present appellant Asa Ram filed a suit in July, 1971 against Jitender Singh and one Lal Chand for a declaration to the effect that he was in cultivating possession of the land detailed in that suit since Kharif, 1962. The defendants of that suit admitted the claim of Asa Ram and a decree was accordingly passed on 9th August, 1971. The land included in the suit filed by Asa Ram was part of the land which Gopal had already purchased in proceedings under section 18 of the Act. Gopal was not made a party to the suit. Exhibit P.14 is the copy of the order passed in the suit while Exhibit P.13 is the copy of the decreesheet. On the basis of that decree Asa Ram filed an application under section 18 of the Act for purchase of the land in respect of which his suit had been decreed. The Revenue Officer vide order dated 22nd March, 1972 allowed that application. Thereupon Gopal filed the present suit alleging the above facts for a declaration to the effect that he was owner of the suit land and the defendants had no connection with it. Asa Ram and Lal Chand were arrayed as defendants No. 2 and 3 in the suit while Jitender Singh was arrayed as defendant No.1.

The suit was contested by the defendants. However, it is not necessary to narrate their pleas. Suffice it to say that the learned trial Court held that proceedings which were instituted by Asa Ram were collusive in nature and, in fact, long before the institution of those proceedings Gopal had become the owner of the land. The trial Court decreed the suit of Gopal. Asa Ram and Lal Chand challenged that order in appeal. Jitender Singh also filed a separate appeal. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge (with Enhanced Appellate Powers), Hissar, who heard those appeals dismissed them. Still not feeling satisfied Asa Ram filed this appeal.

I am of the opinion that the present appeal has no force. As noticed earlier, the purchase application filed by Gopal under section 18 of the Act was allowed on 26th September, 1964. Exhibit P.10 is the copy of that order. That application had been contested by Jitender Singh and in spite of that contest it was allowed. It is also in the evidence that long before the filing of the collusive suit by Asa Ram against Jitender Singh, Gopal had deposited the required instalments and those had been withdrawn by the landowner i.e. Jitender Singh. Thus Gopal had become the owner of the land purchased under section 18 of the Act prior to the filing of the suit by Asa Ram. In fact, for making the tenant owner of the land purchased under section 18 of the Act, the withdrawal of the price by the landowner is not necessary. The tenant becomes owner as soon as he deposits the first instalment. The relevant portion of section 18 of the Act reads as follows :

"18. (1) ... ... ... (2) A tenant desirous of purchasing land under subsection (1) shall make an application in writing to an Assistant Collector of First Grade having jurisdiction over the land concerned, and the Assistant Collector, after giving notice to the landowner and to all other persons interested in the land and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, shall determine the value of land which shall be the average of the prices obtaining for similar land in the locality during 10 years immediately preceding the date on which the application is made.

(3) The purchase price shall be threefourths of the value of land as so determined.

(4) (a) The tenant shall be competent to pay the purchase price either in lump sum or in six monthly instalments not exceeding ten in manner prescribed.

(b) On the purchase price or the first instalment thereof, as the case may be, being deposited, the tenant shall be deemed to have become the owner of the land, and the Assistant Collector shall, where the tenant is not already in possession and subject to the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887) put him in possession thereof."

Thus when Jitender Singh had ceased to be the owner, the decree passed in the suit filed by Asa Ram against Jitender Singh and Lal Chand has no effect upon the rights of Gopal. The order of the Revenue Office allowing Asa Ram to purchase part of the land which had already been purchased by Gopal is infructuous.

For the foregoing reasons I do not find any force in the present appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.