Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Merit; Transfers Deemed Collusive and Benami

The appeal was dismissed as it had become infructuous and lacked merit. The High Court's judgment was upheld, finding that the rule in Rameshwar's case was not applicable due to distinguishable facts. The transfers were deemed collusive and benami, with no rights conferred to the transferees. The Assistant Collector's order was found to lack jurisdiction in not involving the original landholder's legal heirs. The death of the landholder altered the tenant's rights under Section 18(1) of the Act, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the rule laid down in Rameshwar's case.
2. Validity of the oral sales and the status of the transferees.
3. Jurisdiction and procedural propriety of the Assistant Collector's order.
4. Impact of the death of the original landholder on the tenant's rights under Section 18(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.

Summary:

1. Applicability of the rule laid down in Rameshwar's case:
The arguments in the appeal revolved around whether the rule in Rameshwar's case applied. In Rameshwar's case, the Court held that the death of a large landholder during the pendency of an appeal did not affect the tenants' vested rights acquired under Section 18(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. However, the Court found that Rameshwar's case was not applicable to the present case as the facts were distinguishable.

2. Validity of the oral sales and the status of the transferees:
The Court noted that the transfers made by Kulwant Rai to Madan Lal and Rajender Kumar were collusive and did not create any right or title in the transferees since the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 required a registered instrument for such sales. The High Court had declared these transfers as benami and held that the transferees had no right or title to the lands.

3. Jurisdiction and procedural propriety of the Assistant Collector's order:
The Assistant Collector had initially allowed the application of Harditta Ram for purchase under Section 18(1) of the Act without impleading the original landholder Kulwant Rai. The Assistant Collector later struck off the names of Kulwant Rai's legal heirs from the proceedings, which was found to be without jurisdiction. The Financial Commissioner and the High Court both held that the Assistant Collector's order was without jurisdiction and that the legal heirs should have been considered in the proceedings.

4. Impact of the death of the original landholder on the tenant's rights under Section 18(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953:
The Court held that the death of Kulwant Rai during the pendency of the proceedings resulted in his legal heirs becoming small landholders. This change in status had to be taken into account, and the rights of the tenant under Section 18(1) of the Act abated as a result of the inheritance. The High Court's judgment, which took into account the changed situation brought about by the death of the original landholder, was upheld.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed as it had become infructuous and lacked merit. The High Court's judgment was found to be correct, and no relief could be granted to the appellants. The decision in Rameshwar's case was distinguished based on the facts, and the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.

---