Judgment

Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, J. :-

CM-2909-LPA-2022

1. Application for condonation of delay of 71 days in re-filing the appeal is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, duly supported by affidavit. Delay of 71 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of.

CM-2911-LPA-2022

Application under Chapter 1-C, Rule 3, Volume-V of HIGH COURT RULES and Orders has been filed for impleading the legal representatives of deceased appellant Shanti Devi, who is stated to have expired on 15.05.2021 leaving behind the legal heirs as mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the application. It has been averred that there are no other legal heirs of the deceased Shanti Devi. Application is duly supported by affidavit of Dilbagh Singh son of deceased Shanti Devi.

Accordingly, in view of the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit, the same is allowed and the legal representatives, as mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the application are permitted to pursue the present litigation only. It is made clear that the present order will not be liable to be taken into consideration in any other set of proceedings. CM stands disposed of.

LPA-1206-2022 (O&M)

Present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.07.2022 wherein CWP No.712 of 2017 filed by the deceased Shanti Devi alongwith Smt. Bhag Devi and others, was dismissed. The only benefit granted was that they were entitled to retain possession of 12 kanals of land, which was purchased by them.

2. The learned Single Judge, thus, upheld the orders of ejectment passed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Hisar dated 30.03.2012 (Annexure P-3) which was further duly upheld by the Collector, Hisar on 04.12.2012 (Annexure P-4) and the revision was dismissed on 09.07.2013 (Annexure P-5) by the Commissioner, Hisar Division. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana had also dismissed the revision on 11.08.2016 (Annexure P-9) which were all subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge.

3. Counsel has restricted his argument only to the extent that on the basis of Section 70 of the PUNJAB TENANCY ACT , 1887 (for short ‘1887 Act’) the claim for compensation should have been mandatorily dealt with by the authorities below.

4. The learned Single Judge noticed that the argument had neither been raised before any of the authorities below nor a claim for compensation was raised at the time of filing the amended written statement, wherein the plea had been taken that the landowner was not a small landowner, which was the ground for eviction. Apparently no such plea had been taken in the alternative.

5. Counsel has tried to convince us that it was the duty of the Court to direct the tenant to file the statement of his claim, if any, to compensation for improvements, disturbance or of the grounds thereof.

6. We have examined the provisions of 1887 Act, wherein Sections 63 to 69 which read as under provides improvements by tenants, whereas procedure for determining compensation is provided under Section 70 to 74. The provisions of Sections 63 to 69 read as under:-

“63. Title of occupancy tenant to make improvements-

A tenant having a right of occupancy is entitled to make improvements on his tenancy.

64. Title of tenants not having right of occupancy to make improvements-

(1) A tenant not having a right of occupancy may make improvements on his tenancy with the assent of his landlord.

(2) If at any time the question arises whether or not the landlord assented to the making of an improvement by a tenant not having a right of occupan