SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.-In this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 29.6.1993 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby the revision filed by the petitioners against the order dated 3.11.1987 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ambala Division, was dismissed upholding the order dated 28.8.1985 passed by the District Collector, Faridabad. Vide order dated 28.8.1985 the Collector, on an appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat, set aside the order dated 25.6.1984 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Palwal, allowing the suit filed by the petitioners for declaring their occupancy rights and ownership in the land in dispute.

2. In the present case, the petitioners claimed themselves as Bhondedars on the land in dispute measuring 6 kanals 5 marlas situated in village Kanauli. They alleged to have been in continuing cultivating possession of the land in dispute as Bhondedars for a very long period since 1907. They filed a suit for declaration under Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1952 Act”) before Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Palwal against the Gram Panchayat for declaring them having occupancy rights and ownership in the disputed land. Initially, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade decreed the suit of the petitioners while holding that the petitioners had acquired the occupancy rights in the land in dispute, which was given to them as Bhondedars, in view of the service rendered by them as Jarib Kashi in the village and keeping in view their continuing cultivating possession since 1907 without there being any rent or batai. It was also held that since the petitioners had acquired the occupancy rights in the land in dispute before the enforcement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1961 Act'), therefore, vesting of the land in dispute in the Gram Panchayat under the aforesaid Act does not affect the rights of the petitioners, who were the Bhondedars.

3. On appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat, the said order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade was set aside by the Collector while coming to the conclusion that the Bhondedars are not the tenants and they cannot acquire the occupancy rights in the land in dispute merely because they were in continuing cultivating possession on the land in dispute as Bhondedars for a long time. It was further held that for acquiring the occupancy rights, one has to fulfill necessary conditions, i.e., he should fall within the definition of `tenant'; (ii) he must be paying marginal rent which may not be more than the land revenue; and (iii) there must be implied or express agreement of never to eject between him and the landlord. It has been held that in the revenue record the petitioners were never recorded as occupancy tenants nor they had acquired the status of occupancy tenants. Therefore, merely on the basis of their long continuing cultivating possession as Bhondedars, they cannot be declared as having occupancy rights of ownership in the land in dispute.

4. The order of the Collector was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Financial Commissioner. While upholding the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner (Appeals), the Financial Commissioner has observed as under:-

“I have given careful thought to the arguments advanced by both the sides. The passage quoted from the District Gazetteer Volume IV A of Gurgaon District in the ruling reported in 1983 PLJ 231 reads “the bhonda is, like a dohli, a grant of a few Bighas of land rent-free. The principal difference is that, while the service for which the dohli is granted is something directly connected with religion, the bhonda is given for some secular service, such as the duties of the village watchman (chaukidar) or messenger (bulahar). The bhondedar may be ejected on failure to fulfil the conditions of his tenure and perhaps in some cases at the w