Jagdish Singh vs Guru Amarjit Singh

K.S. Janjua, F.C.

These three revision petitions come recommended from the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division seeking an intervention in the orders of Collector, Jalandhar dated 6.3.1991.

Brief facts of the case as brought out by the Commissioner in his order of 16.3.1994 are reproduced below :

The application in Form ''Q'' was decided by Asstt. CollectorIst on 24.3.72 for allowing Jagdish Singh petitioner to purchase the land. In that application Gurbachan Singh, Charanjit Singh and Mohinder Singh were not made parties to be heard in the purchase application. Financial Commissioner, vide his order dated 28.1.1982 set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and remanded the case for a fresh decision for providing an opportunity of hearing to the present respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 (Mohinder Singh, Gurbachan Singh and Charanjit Singh). Thereafter, Asstt. CollectorI, on 22.8.1983 ordered Jagdish Singh to file an amended application to the extent of his claim for purchase under Section 18. Further it was ordered that the present respondents No. 2 to 4 should also file their claim for purchase of the land, for which they considered themselves to be the rightful claimants. Notice was also issued to Guru Amarjit Singh landowner, but he did not file any reply. Jagdish Singh did not amend his application and claimed his right on 23 Kanals 11 marlas as per earlier order of the Assistant Collector dated 24.3.1972. He was allowed to purchase only 10 Kanals 0 Marlas land vide order dated 3.6.1988. Similarly, respondent No. 2 Mohinder was allowed to purchase 0 Kanal 18 marlas land. Gurbachan Singh respondent No. 3 was allowed to purchase 1 Kanal 2 marlas and Charanjit Singh, respondent No. 4 was allowed to purchase 11 Kanals 11 marlas vide orders dated 3.6.1988. These orders were challenged in three appeals before the Collector, who dismissed the same on 6.3.1991.

Everything in the case hinges on whether a subtenant has any right for allotment of land which has been declared surplus in the hands of big landlords. Commissioner while recommending the revisions has held that the relationship between the subtenant and a tenant is similar to that between a tenant and the landlord. He has opined that the subtenancy had existed for more than 2530 years and the right to purchase only accrues to the sub tenant. According to him, since the subtenant and not the tenant was in cultivating possession and actual possession, therefore, the right to purchase the surplus area passes on to the subtenant.

I have heard the parties. According to learned counsel for the petitioner (Jagdish Singh), the subtenant has been paying rent to the landlord as ''Gair Marusi'' and ''Gair Marusi Dom''. He has not paid anything to the tenant. He cited 1979PLJpage 5256 by which the subtenants do acquire the rights of tenant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants pleaded that the subtenant is not the tenant and the theory that visavis subtenant becomes the landlord is not liable. He referred to 1979PLJ483 Section 18 and 1962 PLJ 47.

In Punjab, we have two laws governing the rights of the tenants (1) Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 which is applicable to erstwhile areas of Punjab, and (2). The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. The two Acts treat the subtenant in a quite distinctive manner. In 1953 Act (Punjab) the subtenant has absolutely no locusstandi. He is not entitled to purchase any surplus land from the landlord. The tenant and nobody else has a right to purchase. If the tenant is guilty of subletting the land, he (tenant) forfeits his right. It does not mean that by virtue of having virtual tenancy, a subtenant acquires any right. In fact, 1953 Act does not recognise the subtenant. There is no way of interpreting the 1953 Statute as to mean that the rights of tenant should pass on to the subtenant. The well established principle is that the subtenant sinks and swims with the tenant. This exposition has been upheld by the Apex Court also. On the other hand, 1955 Statute which relates to Pepsu treats the subtenant in much more indulgent manner than the Punjab Act. Section 22 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 reads as follows :

"xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

(3) The right conferred upon a tenant to acquire proprietary rights in respect of any land under this Section may, if such tenant has sublet the land, be exercised by the subtenant to the exclusion of the tenant."

This Statute expressly recognises the rights of subtenant. If the tenant has sublet the land, his rights can be exercised by the subtenant to the exclusion of the tenant. This is in sharp contrast to the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. It is strange that in one State, two areas are subject to two distinct laws. Since this case relates to Jalandhar (Punjab) Act, 1953 will be applicable to it. Having held that the Punjab Act does not suffer subtenants, I am inclined to differ with the Commissioner and uphold the orders of the Collector.

This is a very hard case for the defendants since they have been in possession of land for the last more than 30 years. But we have to interpret the Statute as it exists, It is for the Legislature to intervene and provide for such hard cases. There cannot be much justification in having two laws in one State.

To be communicated.