Case: Jaimal &amp; Anr Vs. Financial Commissioner, Punjab &amp; Ors

The appellants, Jaimal and Ram Sigh, applied under Section 18 of the Act to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Hissar, to purchase 280 Kanals 4 marlas of land situate in village Mehnda, Tehsil Hansi, District Hissar. The land was originally owned by respondents Nos. 4 to 10, who had given this land on lease to Sheo Parshad, respondent No. 8. It is not in dispute that the Appellants and their fathers had been in occupation of the land in dispute for the last 80 years, as sub-tenants under Sheo Parshad, respondent No. 8. During the pendency of the application, respondents Nos. 4 to 10 sold the land in dispute, on October 25, 1957, to Sheo Parshad, and also in favour of his two sons. The Assistant Collector, by his order dated November 30, 1959, accepted the application of the appellants and allowed them to purchase 274 Kanals of land for Rs. 6730. On appeal, the Collector varied the order but the variation is not material for the purpose of this appeal. The appellants then preferred an appeal to the Commissioner and Sheo Parshad filed Revision Petition to him against the order of the Collector. The Commissioner upheld the claim of the appellants to purchase the land under Section 18 of the Act at the price assessed by the Assistant Collector, but he modified the order in respect of 85 kanals 8 marlas which had been sold to the sons of Sheo Parshad. The final order in the proceedings was passed by the Financial Commissioner who, by his order dated August 27, 1962, held that the appellants were not entitled to purchase the land under Section 18 of the Act. Thereupon the appellants filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the order of the Financial Commissioner. The High Court was also of the opinion that the appellants being sub-tenants were not entitled to apply under Section 18 of the Act.

Reasoning: 8. Both sides have relied on the scheme of the Act, but it seems to us that the scheme of the Act and the objects underlying the Act do not assist us in determining this question. It is well known that the main objects of the Act were to provide security to the tenants, settle tenants on land declared surplus and fix a ceiling on the total holding of land-owners an tenants. It is also well known that it was a measure of agrarian reform. But these matters do not assist us in interpreting S. 18.9. The answer must depend upon the language of S. 18, fairly construed. If it was intended that a sub-tenant should be entitled to purchase under S.18, we would have expected some provision in the Act to solve the difficulties which would arise if there was competition between the tenant and the subtenant.10. There was some debate before us whether a tenant who has sublet would be treated to be in continuous occupation of the land during the period of sub-tenancy within S. 18 (1) (i), but we think that the proviso to S. 18 (1) proceeds on the basis that the tenant is in continuous occupation even though he has sublet the land.11. It will again be noticed that under sub-s. (4) (b) of S. 18 on the purchase price being deposited, the tenant becomes owner of the land. If the contention of the appellant was correct, the sub-tenant would become the owner under sub-s. (4) (b); but what will happen to the rights of the tenant? No satisfactory answer was given to this question.12. Again it will further be noticed that sub-s. (5) of S. 18 talks of the mortgage of the land but it does not speak of the mortgage of the rights of a tenant.13. It seems to us that the High Court was right in holding that the legislature did not intend to confer any rights under S. 18 on the sub-tenant. The fact that by sub-letting the tenant is also not able to apply under S. 18 by virtue of the first proviso to sub-s. (1) cannot confer rights on the sub-tenant because he must himself be a tenant of land-owner within S. 18 of the Act.14. Mr. Chagla says that it is a very hard case for the appellants have been in possession for over 30 years, but if it is a hard case it is for the legislature to intervene and provide for such hard cases.