Hari Chand vs State of Punjab

B.R. Tuli, J.

The petitioners own land measuring 195 bighas in village Manis, Tehsil, Kaithal, District Karnal, which was given to respondent No. 4 on lease for 15 years by means of leasedeed dated December 15, 1954. In 1964, a demand for betterment charges under the Punjab Betterment Charges and Acreage Rates Act, 1952 (hereinafter called `the Act''), was made from the petitioners on the ground that they were the landowners and liable to pay the said levy. The petitioners disputed their liability to pay the betterment charges and stated that respondent 4, who is a lessee of the land and was deriving benefit from irrigation facilities, was liable to pay the same. That contention of the petitioners was to be accepted and that is why this petition was filed. A written statement has been filed stating that under the said Act the petitioners as landowners are liable to pay the betterment charges. Respondent No. 4 has not cared to defend the petition although served.

The dispute in this case is whether the petitioners or respondent No. 4 are liable to pay the betterment charges under the abovementioned Act, Under sections 4 and 8 of the Act the liability to pay the betterment charges rests upon the landowners and the occupancy tenants. Landowner in this Act has the same meaning as in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. In that Act landowner is defined as under :

"`Landowner'' does not include a tenant or an assignee of land revenue, but does include a person to whom a holding has been let in farm, under this Act, for the recovery of an arrear of land revenue or a sum recoverable as such an arrear, and every other person not hereinbefore in this clause mentioned who is in possession of an estate or any share or portion thereof, or in the enjoyment of any part of the profits of an estate."

This definition clearly excludes tenant from the purview of land owner. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while interpreting this definition of landowner in the Punjab Land Revenue Act held in Tekan and others v. Ganeshi, (1962) LXIV P.L.R. 572 : 1962 P.L.J. 75, that a lessee is not a landowner. It is, therefore, clear that respondent 4 is not liable to pay betterment charges under the Act and it is only the petitioners, who are the landowners who are liable to pay that amount. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 are not concerned with the terms of lease which is a contract between the petitioners and respondent 4 to which they are not a party. Moreover, a contract of lease between two private persons cannot affect the provisions of the Act which imposes obligation.

For the reasons given above, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 100/.