No vested right arises from a purchase application alone; statutory purchase rights depend on compliance and can be defeated by later events.

Filing an application for purchase under Section 18(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 did not by itself create any vested or accrued right, because no deposit was made under Section 18(4)(a) and the statutory fiction under Section 18(4)(b) never arose. The applicants therefore had only a liberty to apply, not an enforceable entitlement, and later events such as the landowner's death and the consequent change in the heirs' status could be considered. The earlier precedent involving a vested statutory right was inapplicable. Since the connected judgment on the same issue had already attained finality, no effective relief remained and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants had acquired any vested or accrued right under Section 18(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 merely by filing an application for purchase, and whether the appeal could survive after the connected judgment had attained finality.

Analysis: The application for purchase had not progressed beyond the stage of a mere claim under Section 18(1); no deposit had been made under Section 18(4)(a), and the legal fiction in Section 18(4)(b) had not been triggered. A mere liberty to apply does not amount to an accrued right, so later events, including the death of the landowner and the resulting change in status of the heirs, could be taken into account. The distinction drawn in the earlier case of purchase with a vested statutory right was held to be inapplicable. The Court also noted that the connected judgment on the same issue had already become final, leaving no effective relief open in this appeal.

Conclusion: The appellants had no vested or accrued right under Section 18(1), and the appeal could not succeed.

---