Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
JAIMAL & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
25/09/1968
BENCH:
SIKRI, S.M.
BENCH:
SIKRI, S.M.
BACHAWAT, R.S.
CITATION:
1969 AIR 392 1969 SCR (2) 210
ACT:
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (Punj. 10 of 1953), s.
18--Sub-tenant whether entitled to purchase land from
landowner.
HEADNOTE:
The appellants, who had been in occupation of certain
agricultural lands for more than 30 years as sub-tenants.,
applied under s. 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures
Act, 1953 to purchase the lands. The final authority under
the Act, held that the ’appellants were not entitled to
purchase the land. The appellants flied a writ petition in
the High Court. The High Court held that the appellants
being sub-tenants were not entitled to apply under s. 18 of
the Act. Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: The Legislature did not intend to confer any
rights under s. 18 on the sub-tenant.
The word ’landowner’ is defined in s. 2(1) of the Act to
mean a person defined as such in the Punjab Land Revenue
Act, 1887. Under the latter Act, a landowner does not
include a tenant. The definitions of the words ’tenant’ and
’land-owner’, make it clear that ’a tenant of a tenant
cannot be a tenant of the land-owner, Further, [213 G; 214
E]
(a) The first proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 18 makes it
clear that a tenant who has sublet the land or a portion, as
the case may be. to any other person during the period of
his continuous occupation is disabled from applying under s.
18 unless during the period of his continuous occupation the
tenant was suffering from legal disability or physical
infirmity or if a woman was a widow or was unmarried; [214
E-F]
(b) If it was intended that a sub-tenant should be
entitled to purchase under s. 18, some provision in the Act
would have been there to solve the difficulties which would
arise if there was competition between the tenant and the
sub-tenant; [215 A-B]
(c) If the contention of the appellant was correct, the
sub-tenant would become the owner of the land under s.
18(4)(b) on the purchase price being deposited.No
satisfactory answer was given ’as to what will then happen
to the rights of the tenant; and [215 C]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
(d) Section 18(5) refers to mortgage of the land but it
does not refer to the mortgage of the rights of a tenant.
[215 D]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.. 2354 of
1966.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 1963 of
the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 1559 of 1962.
M.C. Chagla and Janardan Sharma, for the appellants.
B.C. Misra, S.K. Mehta and K.L. Mehta, for respondent
No. 3.
211
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, J. This appeal by certificate granted to the
appellants by the High Court of Punjab under Art. 133(1)(c)
of the Constitution raises one point, namely, whether a sub-
tenant is entitled to purchase the land from the land-owner
under s. 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act
(Punj. Act X of 1953)-hereinafter referred to as the Act.
It would be sufficient to give few facts. The
appellants, Jaimal and Ram Singh, applied under s. 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. 3. It
is not in dispute that the appellants and their fathers had
been in occupation of the land in dispute for the last 30
years, as sub-tenants under Sheo Parshad, respondent No. 3.
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. 6,730/-. 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 s. 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 s. 18 of the Act. Thereupon the appellants filed a
petition under Art. 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 s. 18 of the Act.
The answer to the question whether the appellants are
entitled to apply under s. 18 of the Act depends upon the
interpretation. of s. 18, which reads as follows:
"18. Right of certain tenants to purchase land.
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
in any law, usage or contract, a tenant of a land owner
other than a small land-owner-
121
(i) who has been in continuous occupation of the land
comprised in his tenancy for a minimum period of six years,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
or
(ii) who has been restored to his tenancy under the
provisions of this Act and whose periods of continuous
occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy immediately
before ejectment and immediately after restoration of his
tenancy together amount to six years or more, or
(iii) who was ejected from his tenancy after the 14th
day of August, 1947, and before the commencement of this Act
who was in continuous occupation of the land comprised in
his tenancy for a period of six years or more immediately
before his ejectment,
shall be entitled to purchase from the land-owner the
land so held by him but not included in the reserved area of
the land-owner, in the case of a tenant falling within
clause (i) or clause (ii) at any time, and in the case of a
tenant falling within clause (iii) within a period of one
year from the date of commencement of this Act:
Provided that no tenant referred to in this subsection
shall be entitled to. exercise any such right in respect of
the land or any portion thereof, if he had sublet the land
or the portion, as the case may be, to any other person,
during any period of his continuous occupation, unless
during that period the tenant was suffering from a legal
disability or physical infirmity, or if a woman, was a widow
or was unmarried;
Provided further that if the land intended to be
purchased is held by another tenant who is entitled to
preempt the sale under the next preceding section, and who
is not accepted by the purchasing tenant, the tenant in
actual occupation shall have the right to pre-empt the sale.
(2) A tenant desirous of purchasing land under sub-
section (1) shall make an application in writing to an
Assistant Collector of the First Grade, having jurisdiction
over the land concerned, and the Assistant Collector, after
giving notice to the landlord and to all other persons
interested in the land and after making such inquiry as he
thinks fit, shall determine the value of the land which
shall be the average of the price obtaining for similar
land in the locality during 10 years
213
immediately preceding the date on which the application is
made.
(3) The purchase price shall be three-fourth of the
value of land as so determined.
(4) (a) The tenant shall be competent to pay the
purchase price either in a lump sum or in six monthly
instalments not exceeding ten in the manner prescribed.
(b) On the purchase price or the first instalment
thereof, as the case may .be, being deposited, the tenant
shall be deemed to have become the owner of the land, and
the Assistant Collector shall, where the tenant is not
already in possession, and subject to the provisions of the
Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), put him in possession
thereof.
(c) If a default is. committed in the payment of any
of the instalments, the entire outstanding balance shall on
application by the person entitled to receive it, be
recoverable as arrears of land revenue.
(5) If the land is subject to a mortgage at the time
the purchase, the land shall pass to the tenant unencumbered
by the mortgage but the mortgage debt shall be a charge on
the purchase money.
(6) If there is no such charge as aforesaid the
Assistant Collector shall, subject to any ’direction which
he may receive from any court, pay the purchase money to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
landowner.
(7) If there is such a charge, the Assistant Collector
shall, subject as aforesaid, apply in the discharge of the
mortgage debt so much of the purchase money as is required
for that purpose and pay the balance, if any, to the land-
owner, or retain the purchase money pending the decision of
a civil Court as to the person or persons entitled
thereto."
"Land-owner" is defined in s. 2( 1 ) of the Act to mean
person defined as such in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887
(Act XVII of 1887) and shall include an "allottee" and
"lessee". as defined in clauses (b) and (c) respectively, of
section 2 of the East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land
Resettlement)Act, 1949 (Act XXXVI of 1949), hereinafter
referred to as the "Resettlement Act". The explanation to s.
2 (1) reads:
"In respect of land mortgaged with
possession, the mortgagee shall be deemed to
be the land-owner."
The word "tenant" is defined in s. 2 (6) as follows:
214
"Tenant" has the meaning assigned to it in
the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (Act XVI of 1887)
and includes a sub-tenant and self-cultivating
lessee, but shall not include a present
holder, as defined in section 2 of the
Resettlement Act."
In the Land Revenue Act, 1887, "land-owner" has been defined
as follows,in s.3 (2)
"land-owner" does not include a tenant
or an assignee of land-revenue, but does
include a person to whom a holding has been
transferred, or an estate or holding has been
let in farm, under this Act for the recovery
of an arrear of land-revenue or of 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."
It will be noticed that before a person can apply under
s. 18 of the Act he must be a tenant of a land-owner other
than a small land-owner. There is no dispute that the land-
owner in this case is not a small land-owner. The only
question is whether the appellants, who were sub-tenants,
can be said to be tenants of the land-owner within the
meaning of s. 18. If we look at the definitions of the
words "tenant" and "land-owner", it seems clear that a
tenant of a tenant cannot be a tenant of the land-owner,
because the definition expressly says that a land-owner does
not include a tenant. Apart from this, the first proviso to
sub-s. ( 1 ) of s. 18 makes it clear that a tenant who has
sublet the land or a portion, as the case may be, to any
other person during the period of his continuous occupation
is disabled from applying under s. 18 unless during the
period of his continuous occupation the tenant was
suffering from legal disability or physical infirmity or if
a woman was a widow or was unmarried. In other words, for
example, a tenant who is a widow would be entitled to apply
under s. 18 even though she had sublet the land which she
desired to purchase. No satisfactory answer was given by the
learned counsel for the appellants as to what would happen
if both the sub-tenant and the widow applied to purchase.
Both sides have relied on the scheme of the Act, but it
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
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 and tenants. It is also well-known that it
was a measure of agrarian reform. But these matters do
215
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 sub-tenant.
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.
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 subtenant 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.
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 the rights of a tenant.
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.
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.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. There
will be no order as to costs.
Y.P. Appeal dismissed.
216