LexSAHIB RAM ETC. versus THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
796
SAHIB RAM ETC.
v.
THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB & OTHERS
February 24, 1970
[J, M. SHELAT AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.]
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 10 of 1953, Section 18(1), sub
ss. (i) & (ii)-Scope of-Whether to claim right of purchase tenant should
have been in continuous occupation of land for 6 years before Act canie
into force.
The question that arose for decision in thes.e writ petitions and civil
appeals was whether a tenant, in order to claim' the right of purchase as
agamst the land-owner, under s. 18(1) of the Punjab Security of Land
Tenures Act X of 1953 should have been in continuous occupation of
the land comprised
in his tenancy for a minimum period of six years
on the date when the Act came into force (April 15, 1953), or on the
date when he files the application for purchase to the concerned authority
under the Act.
A subsidiary point for consideration was whether
the
person who claims the right to purchase, should have been a tenant on
the date when the Act came into force.
HELD : In order to claim a right of purchase as against the land owner
s. 18 (1 ){i) of the Act, the minimum period of six years should have
been completed at the time when the application for purchase by
the
tenant is made, and it is not necessary that he should have been a tenant
of the land on April 15, 1953.
Provided the other conditions are satis-
fied such a tenant will be entitled to purchase the land. [808 G]
B
c
D
Section 18(1){i) gi"'s a right to a tenant to purchase the land; and
E
that right has to be examined when an application under s. 18 is made
and cannot be denied on the ground that he was not a tenant for more
than six years on April 15, 1953. There is no limitation placed under
cl. (i) of s. 18(1) that the tenant who exercises his right should be a
tenant on the date of the Act or that he should have completed the
period of six years on April 15, 1953 and there is no warrant for reading
in s. 18(1) (i) clauses which it does not contain. It is eoough if the
continuous period of six years has been completed on the date when the
F
tenant files the application for purchase of land. (808 CJ
When the object of the Act as seen from clause (ii) of section 18 (I)
is to attract even a tenant who got back into possession of the land after
the date of Act, there is no reason why a limitation shouh;l be read into
clause (i) in respect of a tenant who is in possession of the land that
he should have completed the period of six years continuous occupation
even prior to the date of the Act.
G
Clause (iii) dealing with tho third category of tenants, admittedly re-
lates to a tenant evicted from the property even before the date of the
Act and who was not in possession on the day when the Act came into
force.
But, nevertheless, if such tenants had been in continuous posses~
sion for six years at the time of their ejectment which must be before
the date of the Act they are entitled to purchase the prooertv, but that
right must be exercised within a period of one year from the date of the
H
commencement of the Act. [807 BJ
'
It stands to reason that the tenants coming under clause (i) and (ii)
who are in actual possession of the land have been given the
option
SAHIB RAM v. FIN, COMMR, (Vaidialingam, I.)
797
A either to continue as tenants and pay rent or to exercise their right to
purcbase the land at any time. There is no question in their case of there
being any time-lagor doubt because, being in possession no other person's
right wilt normally be affected; whereas in the case of a tenant coming
under clause (iii), he bas already gone out of the land and therefore
the Legislature bas specifically provided a very short period of one year
from the oate of the Act for exercising, if he so chooses, his right to
B purchase the land provided he satisfies the other conditions mentioned in
the section. [807 F-HJ
GaT>pat v. Jagmal, (1963) Punj. L.R. 652; Amar Singh v. Stat,, of
Punjab, I.L.R. [1967] 2 Punj. & Har. 120; Mam Raj v. Srate of Punjab,
I.L.R. [1969] 2 Punj. & Har. 680; distinguished.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 116 and 190 to
C 214 of 1968.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the
enforcement of fundamental rights; and
Civil Appeals Nos. 2356 and 2357 of 1966 and 1508 to 1514
and 1471 of 1968.
D
Appeals from the judgment and order dated October 1, 1963
of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.