Smt. Rukman vs The Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab and Another

S.S. Knag, J.—Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 4107 and 4108 of 1970 shall be disposed of together by this judgment as common questions of law and fact are involved.

Shrimati Rukman filed an application u/s 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereafter called the Act) for ejectment of Ladhu, her tenant on the ground that, the area comprised in his tenancy was the reserved area of the Applicant Ladhu, the tenant filed an application u/s 18 of the Act for the purchase of the land in dispute.

The Assistant Collector tried both the applications simultaneously. He dismissed the application filed by the landlady for ejectment and allowed the purchase application filed by the tenant vide his order dated 27th of April, 1967. The landlady filed two appeals against this order which were dismissed on December 12, 1967 by the Collector. The revision petitions filed by the landlady against these orders of the Collector, were dismissed by the Commissioner on 26th of February, 1969, she filed revision petitions before the Financial Commissioner and the same were also dismissed by him on 15th of June. 1970. Dissatisfied with these orders Shrimati Rukman has filed this writ petition.

Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the land in dispute was owned by Sewa Dass. He transferred this land to his son Gaja Nand in 1950. Gaja Nand in turn transferred this lard was Shrimati Rukman on 18th of December, 1952 by Tamlik. When the lard to transferred, the Act had not come into force The Act had been promulgated on 15th of April, 1953 much after the transfer in favour of the Petitioner. According to the learned Counsel, u/s 10-A of the Act, only transfers made after 15th of April, 1953 have to be ignored for the purpose of determination of the surplus area of a landowner. The land which had been transferred prior to this date, has to be taken to be the property of the transferee and not of the transferor.

On the other hand, Mr. N.L. Dhingra, learned Counsel appearing for the tenant, has argued that the rights of the tenants have been protected by Section 6 of the Act which is in the following terms:

No transfer of land, except a bona fide sale or mortgage with possession or a transfer resulting from inheritance, made after the 15th of August, 1947 and before the 2nd February, 1955, shall affect the rights of the tenant on such land under this Act.

Section 6 of the Act does not refer to the date of the commencement of the Act, it protects the rights of the tenants, right from 15th of August, 1947. It says in clear terms that no transfer (except some expressly excluded) after 15th of August, 1947, shall affect the rights of the tenants on such land under this Act The Act has been framed for two purposes namely, security of tenure to the tenants and the limit on the holdings of the landowners. According to Mr. Dhingra Section 10-A of the Act deals only with the utilisation of the surplus area for resettlement of the tenants. It does not deal with the rights of the tenants who are already on the land. To determine that, only Section 6 of the Act is relevant. Admittedly, the transfers in favour of Rukman and for that matter in favour of Gaja Nand, was made after 15th of August, 1947. These transfers affect the rights of the tenants, so they have to be ignored. If the land had remained in the hands of Sewa Dass, who was a big landowner, he could not eject the tenant because the land in dispute had not been reserved by him. It was his surplus area. So the tenant had acquired a vested right of not being ejected from the surplus area of a big landowner. The tranfers by Sewa Dass and Gaja Nand had the effect of affecting the rights of the tenant, so they have to be ignored.

There is merit in the submissions made by Mr. Dhingra. Section 6 of the Act protects the rights of the tenants right from 15th of August, 1947. For purpose of Section 6 of the Act the material date is 15th of August, 1947 and not 15th of April, 1953. The rights of the tenants have been protected from a date earlier to the promulgation of the Act. Sewa Dass being a big landowner and not having reserved the land in dispute, could not eject Ladhu, the tenant from the same. The tenant came to acquire certain vested rights by the operation of law. These rights could not be adversly affected by any transfer after 15th of August, 1947. Since the transfers in favour of Gaja Nand and Shrimati Rukman have this effect, they have to be ignored in view of the clear magnate of Section 6 of the Act. As, such the land in dispute cannot be treated to be the permissible area of Shrimati Rukman, nor she can be treated to be a small landowner. This land shall be dealt with as if it were the property of Sewa Dass. The rights of the tenant and the landlady have to be determined on this basis. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application for ejectment will be incompetent and the tenant will be entitled to purchase the land.

Mr. Sarin, contended that Ladhu was not the tenant on the land in dispute under Shrimati Rukman or even the previous landowner. The tenant was Bawa Co operative Farming Society and Ladhu was only a sub-tenant. Mr. Sarin contended that it was well settled that a sub-tenant cannot purchase the land, only a tenant can do so. In support of this contention, he has relied upon Jaimal and Anr. v. The Financial Commissioner Punjab and Ors. 1963 P.L.R. 1072 and Jaimal and Anr. v. The Financial Commissioner Punjab and Ors. 1969 Revenue Law Reporter 236 There is no quarrel with the legal proposition. However Mr. Dhingra, learned Counsel appearing for the private Respondents has argued that Ladhu had been a tenant on this land since 1952 and in fact this position has not been seriously contested before the authorities below. He has urged that in 1955 only paper entry was made showing Bawa Co operative Farming Society to be the tenant. However, all along Ladhu was in possession of the land and was so shown in the revenue records. The tenant was not bound by the entries made at his back.

The revenue authorities have come to a finding that Ladhu was tenant on the land in dispute since 1952. A few stray entries made in the revenue records in favour of Bawa Co-operative Farming Society will not change the position. Even in those entries Ladhu was shown to be in actual cultivating possession of the land. These entries had been made unilaterally at the instance of the landowner to earn exemption from the operation of the Act which was available in those days to the co operative farming societies and it has since been withdrawn. Ladhu throughout remained a tenant under the original landowner. He never accepted the Bawa Cooperative Farming Society as the landowner or even a tenant. He never became a sub-tenant under the Society. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Sarin that Ladhu was only a sub-tenant. The authorities have rightly come to a conclusion that he was a tenant on the land in dispute. He was not a subtenant and a few stray entries showing the Bawa Co-operative Society to be the lessee, are of no consequence.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.