A dohlidar is a landowner for the purposes of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.

M.M.PUNCHHI, J.

1. This writ petition under Arts.226/227 of the Constitution of India requires determination of an interesting question of law, making it imperative on us to dig deep in antiquity to discover what are the attributes of a dohli tenure and who is a dohlidar.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are simple and straight :-

3. Petitioner Baba Badri Dass, Chela of Baba Narotam Dass Bairagi, concededly is a dohlidar of agricultural land measuring 134 kanals 14 marlas, appropriately described in the petition, situate in village Bahu Akbarpur, Tehsil and District Rohtak. According to him, he succeeded to the property being the chela of Baba Narotam Dass, the erstwhile dohlidar. Vide registered deed dt. 16th May, 1973, (copy Annexure-P.1) he leased out the aforesaid parcel of land to respondents No.1 and 2 for a period of ten years at the annual rent of Rupees 2,000/-. The rent was required to be paid on 15th May of each year. Since the rent was not paid regularly, he filed a petition for ejectment of the lessee/ tenants u/s. 9(1) on Form-L of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, (for short the Act) before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rohtak. The tenants resisted the claim of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was not a landowner as defined in the Act and, therefore, the petition for ejectment was incompetent. After recording evidence and hearing the respective contentions of the parties, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rohtak, allowed the petition and ordered the ejectment of respondents Nos.1 and 2. They unsuccessfully appealed before the Collector, Rohtak. The Commissioner of Ambala Division declined to interfere in the revision petition filed by them. They, thus, moved the Financial commissioner, Haryana. Shri V.P. Johar, Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide his order dt. 25th Oct. 1979 (copy Annexure-P.2), allowed the petition and dismissed the ejectment application. This order is now impugned in the writ petition. The Motion Bench admitted the petition to a Division Bench and this is how the matter has been placed before us.

4. As is plain from a reading of the impugned order of the Financial Commissioner, he was confronted with two single Bench decisions of this Court : one in favour of the petitioner and the other in favour of the tenant-respondents. In Mahant Sirya Nath V/s. Financial Commr., Haryana, 1969 Pun LJ 27, H.R Sodhi, J. had taken the view that a Dohlidar would be a landowner as the expression was used in the Act and thus the holdings in his hand would be subjected to the process of surplus area determination. This decision supported the contention of the petitioner that he was a landowner within the meaning of the Act and had a right to maintain the ejectment petition. On the other hand, in Baba Nand Ram V/s. Gram Panchayat of Village Malkos, 1976 Pun LJ 586. A.D. Koshal, J. (who now adorns the Supreme Court) came to hold that the status of a Dohlidar does not differ from that of a tenant, albeit that a tenant is a Dohlidar in perpetuity. This decision went in favour of tenants-respondents. The Financial Commissioner opted for the view of A.D. Koshal, J. and held the petitioner to be a tenant over the land and thus accepting the petition, reversed the orders of the lower officers in the hierarchy. Plainly, we are required to refurnish and reconcile the two views and in doing so, we have to travel back decades in the realm of history.

5. On the annexation of Punjab to British India the land tenures and rights of landowners came to be governed by two important pieces of legislation. The first was the Punjab Tenancy Act (XXVIII of 1868) which later came to be substituted by the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), which held the field till after the independence of the country and still holds the field in a truncated way. The other one was the Punjab Land Revenue Act (XXXIII of 1871) which later came to be substituted by the Punjab Land Revenue