9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances of the present case. In Rameshwar's case, this Court held that the death of the large landholder Teja during the pendency of the appeal before the Financial Commissioner upon the happening of which event inheritance opened resulting in his legal heirs becoming small landholders had not the effect to stultify the rights acquired by his tenants who had applied for purchase of their holdings under Section 18(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and who, pursuant to the Purchase Order made by the Prescribed Authority, had already made the deposit of the first instalment of the purchase price as required under Section 18(4)(a) and had thereupon by the legal fiction contained in Clause (b) thereof, to be deemed to have become the owners of the land since they had acquired a vested right to the grant of relief on the day they made the applications under Section 18(1). At the conclusion of the hearing, the case was adjourned to enable the parties to explore the possibility of a settlement because it seemed that the decision in Rameshwar's case was not really applicable to this case. Although learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 14 signified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reate any right or title in the transferees since the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were extended by the State Government of Punjab by a notification dated March 26, 1955 w.e.f. April I, 1955 to the State. Respondent Nos, 1 and 2 preferred an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector but the Collector rejected the same on August 31, 1961. The Assistant Collector and the Collector both held that Harditta Ram having fulfilled the requirements of Section 18(1) of the Act, he was entitled to purchase the lands from both the transferees. 5. Against the order of the Collector, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred a revision to the Commissioner who by his order dated June 18, 1962 made a reference to the Financial Commissioner holding that since Harditta Ram made a statement before the Assistant Collector on December 22, 1960 by which he confined his application for purchase under Section 18(1) of the Act against respondent No. 2 Rajender Kumar alone, the Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to make an order for the purchase of land belonging to respondent No. 1 Madan Lal. He opined that the order of the Assistant Collector as well as that of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 18(1) of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge the appellants who are the legal heirs of Harditta Ram filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 80 of 1967 on February 27, 1967, with which we are concerned. Respondent Nos. 3 to 14, the legal heirs of Kulwant Rai had in the meanwhile brought a suit on January 6, 1967 for declaration that they were the owners of the lands in dispute in as much as the transferees Madan Lal and Rajender Kumar, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, were mere benamidars of Kulwant Rai and further that no title passed in them as the alleged sales were not effected by any registered instrument as required by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, with consequential prayer for delivery of possession of lands to them. That suit of theirs was decreed by the Subordinate Judge, Fazilka on February 20, 1967. On July 1. 1968 they applied for being impleaded as parties on the ground that the Collector, Ferozepur by his order dated July 17, 1961 while determining the surplus area of the landowner Kulwant Rai held that the alleged sales in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Madan Lal and Rajender Kumar were benami and consequently they had no right or t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey were not necessary parties to the proceedings. Thus, neither the original landholder Kulwant Rai nor respondent Nos. 3 to 14 who are his heirs and legal representatives, are bound by the order of the Assistant Collector dated February 23, 1961 allowing the application of Harditta Ram under Section 18(1) of the Act. Furthermore, the respondents had already been declared to be small landholders by the Collector, Ferozepur by his order dated July 17, 1961 and the learned Subordinate Judge of Fazilka by his judgment and decree dated February 10, 1967 declared their right and title to the lands in dispute holding that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the transferees of Kulwant Rai, were mere benamidars as also granted them a decree for possession thereof. In the premises, the judgment of the High Court does not warrant any interference. 10. Much reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Rameshwar's case, supra, but it is clearly distinguishable on facts. There, the Court was dealing with a case where the tenants who had applied for purchase of their holdings under Section 18(1) of the Act had in compliance with the order made by the Prescribed Authority in their favour, mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
