Civil Writ Petition No.1666 of 2012

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No.1666 of 2012

Date of Decision : 31.01.2012

Jeeta Ram

...Petitioner

Versus

Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

Present: Mr.D.S.Bali, Senior Advocate with

Ms.Neha Mann, Advocate

for the petitioner.

* * *

PARAMJEET SINGH,J.

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for

quashing of the order dated 04.04.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by the

Financial Commissioner whereby, the order dated 30.01.2007 (Annexure

P-5) passed by the Commissioner and order dated 12.12.2001 (Annexure

P-4) passed by the District Collector have been affirmed.

The brief facts of the case are that Ram Kishan Dhawan-

respondent No.5 filed an application under Section 14-A(1) of the Punjab

Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of

1953”) on the ground that he is owner of the land measuring 22 kanals 01

marla situated in the Village Churni Tehsil and District Karnal and the

predecessors of the petitioner i.e. Rulia Ram were cultivating the said land

on batai and they have not paid the arrears of rent from Kharif 1986 to Rabi

1996 without any justification. The Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, after

hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that there is no entry of 1/3^rd

batai, but entry is of possession as Gair Marusi and dismissed the

application of respondent No.5 vide order dated 27.07.2011 (Annexure P-

3). Respondent No.5 through his attorney preferred an appeal before the

Civil Writ Petition No.1666 of 2012

2

District Collector. The District Collector allowed the appeal and recorded

the findings that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant; rent has not

been paid, therefore for non-payment of rent eviction of heirs of Rulia Ram

i.e petitioners and others has been ordered. They preferred revision

petition before the Commissioner that has been dismissed by the

Commissioner vide order dated 31.01.2007 (Annexure P-5). Further

revision filed before the Financial Commissioner, that too has been

dismissed vide order dated 04.04.2011 (Annexure P-6). Hence, this writ

petition.

I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and

perused the documents on record.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner raised an argument that

there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties . The

petitioner or his predecessors had never agreed to pay the 1/3^rd batai nor

they had taken the land on batai tihai basis.

The contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is

not sustainable on the face of it. In the civil suit filed by Rulia Ram (father

of the petitioner) it had been admitted that Sh.Tala Ram, the father of

Rulia Ram, was tenant of Sukh Dayal of 1/3^rd batai. After the death of Sukh

Dayal, no one turned up to claim batai nor they have deposited in the

treasury. The civil Court finding has not been disputed by the learned

senior counsel for the petitioner. There is admission with regard to 1/3^rd

batai. The entry in the revenue record i.e. Jamabandi for the 1986-87

Column No.9, is also batai tihai. The petitioners are bound to pay the rent.

For non-payment of rent, they are liable to be ejected. Since the

petitioners are denying the relationship of landlord and tenant, they are not

entitled to the relief even on the basis of equity. The concurrent findings of

facts have been recorded by the revenue authorities that Rulia Ram (now

his heirs) have not paid the rent. For non-payment of rent, eviction order

Civil Writ Petition No.1666 of 2012

3

against the petitioner and others i.e legal representatives of Rulia Ram has

been passed. The impugned orders are legal and valid

I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders passed by

the revenue authorities under the Act,1953.

No merit.