Raja Ram vs Financial Commissioner, Punjab (Taxation) Chandigarh and others

M.R. Sharma, J.—This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the following facts:-

The petitioner filed an application u/s 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Muktsar, for the purchase of the land on the ground that he was in continuous possession of the land mentioned in the petition as a tenant for the stipulated period of 6 years. This application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector on 30th of September, 1963, on the ground that the petitioner was holding Khasra Nos. 739/331 to 335, as a tenant which he did not include in his application for purchase. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector which also failed. He filed a revision petition before the Commissioner who recommended the case to the Financial Commissioner for the acceptance of the revision petition on the grounds mentioned in his order dated 11th November, 1966. The learned Financial Commissioner turned down this recommendation on the ground that the petitioner had failed to include the whole of his tenancy in his application u/s 18 of the Act. The petitioner has challenged this order of the learned Financial Commissioner.

It is submitted before me that section 18 of the Act does not admit of the interpretation which the learned Financial Commissioner seeks to place on it. Mr. H.L. Sarin, the Learned Counsel for the respondents, has, however, replied that the learned Financial Commissioner have been consistently taking the view that a tenant was not entitled to purchase a part of the land comprised in his tenancy.

In Amar Singh v. The State of Punjab 1961 L.L.T. 55, D.S. Grewal F.C. had occasion to consider this matter and held in the following terms:-

There is considerable force in this argument because a careful reading of section 18 show that a tenant is allowed to purchase the land ''comprised in his tenancy'' and that land should be "the land so held by him". If the intention was that only a part of the land could be purchased, then the section would have been differently worded and there would have been a clear provision entitling the tenant to purchase the land held by him or any portion of it. The absence of the latter alternative shows that the legislature intended the tenant to purchase his entire tenancy and not selected portions of it. Such a selected purchase would obviously be unfair to the landowner because the best bits having been acquired by the tenant the worst would be left with the landowner. Further, multiplicity of ownership would create difficulties in the assessment and division of produce and may lead to complications and disputes of a varied nature. It may also lead to fragmentation of holding in certain circumstances. On practical grounds also it would be against public policy to permit such a multiplicity of ownership. In equity too it seems unfair that the tenant, who has already been placed in an advantageous position by virtue of section 18, should obtain a further benefit by being permitted to select the best areas comprised in his tenancy leaving the worst pieces to the landowner.

In 1964 P.L.J. 168, R.S. Randhawa, F.C. held that a tenant proceeding u/s 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, has to purchase the entire land comprised in his tenancy and not only selected portion of it. If he leaves out part of the land, the application is liable to be dismissed. As this dismissal does not debar him from making another application, no undue hardship is caused to him.

The third case on this point is the one the correctness of which is being challenged in this petition.

I have given my throughout consideration to the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the parties and am of the view that section 18 of the Act cannot be interpreted in the manner adopted by the learned Financial Commissioner. The relevant portions of this section are given as below:-

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, usage or contract, a tenant of a landowner other than a small owner-

(i) who has been in continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy for (a minimum period of six years), or

(ii) * * *

(iii) * * *

shall be entitled to purchase from the landowner the land so held by him.

The plain reading of this section shows that it has been brought on the statute book for giving the relief to the old tenants. They have been given the right to purchase the land comprised in their tenancy, which does not form part of the reserved area of the landowner. It has often been said that this Act is designed to remove the middle man and to make the tiller of the land the owner thereof. The provisions of this Act cannot be interpreted in a manner which sets at naught the avowed object of the Act. In my opinion, the learned Financial Commissioner fell in error in over-emphasising the use of the phrase ''comprised in his tenancy''. The section merely says that the tenant will, be entitled to purchase the land under certain conditions. When one is entitled to do a thing it does not mean so must necessarily do a thing. I am entitled to keep a pen but nobody can stop me from throwing it outside the window. Even otherwise, a purchaser has a right to select the articles which he wants to purchase. It makes no difference whatsoever that the right of purchase has been created under a statute or accrues otherwise. The other considerations enumerated by Grewal, F.C. are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of interpreting the plain language of the statute. In my opinion, it is open to the tenant to purchase as much land as he desires to purchase provided the conditions mentioned in section 18 are fulfilled. The respondent No. 1 has apparently misconstrued the provisions of section 18 and his judgment is amenable to the writ of Certiorari.

For the reasons mentioned above, I allow this petition, quash the order dated 8th of June, 1967 passed by the respondent No. 1, and direct him to allow the application of the petitioner for the purchase of land in respect of such khasra numbers as were originally mentioned in his petition. There shall be no order as to costs.