Civil Writ Petition No.11730 of 2008

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No.11730 of 2008

Date of Decision:03.10.2011

Dalel Singh ......Petitioner

Versus

The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

Present:

Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr.D.Khanna, Additional Advocate General, Haryana,

for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

Mr.Sunil Garg, Advocate,

for respondent No.5.

****

M

EHINDER

S

INGH

S

ULLAR

, J.(oral)

The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement,

relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record, is

that Shri Sanatan Dharam Pathshala, Jhajjar-respondent No.5, claiming itself to be

owner/landlord(for brevity “the landlord”) of the land in dispute, moved an

application, directing Dalel Singh son of Bhartu Singh-petitioner-tenant(for short

“the tenant”) to execute the Qabuliatnama/Pattanama, in the prescribed form,

pertaining to his tenancy and for fixation of the maximum rent payable by him, as

determined in the prescribed manner, in respect of the land in question, invoking

the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) and Section 12 of The Punjab Security of Land

Tenures Act, 1953(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”).

2.

The case set-up by the landlord, in brief, insofar as relevant was that,

although the tenant has been cultivating the suit land at fixed lagan/very old rate of

Rs.60 per annum, but since now there is a custom of providing 1/3^rd share in the

Civil Writ Petition No.11730 of 2008

2

produce(Batai-Tihai), so, he(tenant) is liable to pay 1/3^rd share in the produce in

this regard. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the landlord claimed that the

tenant be directed to pay the Batai-Tihai and accordingly, to execute a

Qabuliatnama/Pattanama and in case of his failure, he be ejected from the suit land

in this context.

3.

The tenant contested the claim of the landlord and filed the reply,

inter alia, pleading that, he has been cultivating the land in question as a tenant, at

a fixed annual rate of rent with mutual agreement of both the parties and the

landlord is not entitled to 1/3^rd share in produce, pertaining to his tenancy. It was

claimed that since no Qabuliatnama between the parties was ever executed, so, the

landlord cannot claim 1/3^rd share in the produce(Batai-Tihai) in this connection

and he prayed for dismissal of the application.

4.

The parties to the lis, in order to substantiate their respective pleas,

brought on record oral as well as the documentary evidence. After taking into

consideration the entire evidence on record, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade

(respondent No.4), determined 1/3^rd(Batai-Tihai) and directed the tenant to

execute/submit Qabuliatnama, in regard to the payment of Batai-Tihai of the land

in dispute, within a period of one month, failing which, order of ejectment was

passed, by way of impugned order 20.05.2004(Annexure P/1).

5.

Aggrieved by the decision(Annexure P/1) of the Assistant Collector

Ist Grade, the tenant filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the

Collector, Jhajjar(respondent No.3) by virtue of impugned order dated 14.09.2005

(Annexure P/2).

6.

Again, dissatisfied with the order(Annexure P/2) of the Collector, the

tenant filed the revision petition, which met with the same fate and was dismissed

by The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak(respondent No.2), by means of

impugned order dated 30.11.2006(Annexure P/3). The further second revision

petition filed by him(tenant) was also dismissed by The Financial Commissioner,

Civil Writ Petition No.11730 of 2008

3

Haryana, Chandigarh(respondent No.1), through the medium of impugned order

dated 26.07.2007(Annexure P/4).

7.

The petitioner-tenant still did not feel satisfied with the