JAIMAL & ANR. versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 210 · Decided: 25-09-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

210 
JAIMAL & ANR. 
v. 
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB & ORS. 
September 25, 1968 
[S. M. SIKRI AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (Punj. 10 of 1953), s. 18-
Sub-tenant whether entit1£d to purchase land from landowner. 
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 filed a writ petition in the High 
Court. The High Court he<ld 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-ten.ant. 
B 
c 
The word 'landowner' is defined ins. 2(1) of the Act to mean a person 
D· 
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 El 
(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 dis-
E: 
abled ftom applyin.g under s. 18 unless during the period of his conti-
nuous occupation the tenant was suffering from legal disability or physi-
cal infirmity ot if a woman w<rs a widow or was unmarried; [214 E-FJ 
(b) If it was intended that a sub-tenant should be entitled to pur-
chase 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-Bl 
F. 
( c) If the contention of the appellant was correct, the 
sub-tenant 
would become the own.er 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] 
( d) Section 18 ( 5) re fern to mortgage of the land but it does not 
refer to the mortgage of the rights of a tenant. [215 DJ 
G; 
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. 
Hl 
B. C. Misra, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta,. for respondent 
No. 3. 
\ 
·-
' 
~-
\ 
• 
-. 
) 
JAIMAL V. FINANCIAL COMMR. (Sikri, J.) 
211 
A 
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 Con-
stitution 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, 
J aimal and Ram Singh, applied under s. 18 of the Act to the 
Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Hissar, to purchase 280 kanals 4 
mar/as of land situate in village Mehnda, Tehsil Hansi, District 
C 
Hissar. 
The land was originally owned by respondents. Nos. 4 
to 10, who had given this land on lease to Sheo Parshad, respon-
dent 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 
D 
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 
E 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 mar/as which had been sold to t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.