PREMNATH SHRIPRAKASH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER:LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners are the same. The point that arises in these writ petitions is whether the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act ('act' for short) apply to the land in question which originally was an evacuee property and which was later in the year 1970 allotted to Respondent 3 Prem Nath under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The contention of the petitioners is that Respondent 3 Prem Nath is a Bhumidhar and the petitioners are his tenants and by virtue of the provisions of the Act they have become Bhumidhars and Respondent 3 cannot seek eviction, or any other relief under the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 which is no more in force. The stand taken by the contesting respondent namely Respondent 3 is that the provisions of the Act do not apply to evacuee property by virtue ofsection 192 of the Act and consequently the petitioners cannot claim any rights under the Act. To appreciate these points involved, it is necessary to state a few more facts.

(2.) The land in question is situated in the revenue estate of Village Jhangaula, Delhi. Admittedly it is an evacuee property owned by certain muslims who migrated to Pakistan and the same is allotted on 22/09/1970 to Respondent 3. Respondent 3 eventually transferred the land in question to Risal Singh, Respondent 4 by way of sale and mutation took place in the year 1983. The writ petitioners were tenants of Respondent 3 having taken the land on half batai basis and they stopped payment to Respondent 4. When Respondents 4 to 6 filed petitions for payment and for appraisement of the produce under the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, that was resisted by the petitioners contending that they themselves have acquired Bhumidhari rights under the Act. The petitions filed, by Respondents 4 to 6 were dismissed. They carried the matter in appeal and the Additional Collector, Delhi who heard the appeals allowed the same holding that the Punjab Tenancy Act applies and thereby negatived the contention of the petitioners that they have become Bhumidhars under the Act. In that order the learned Additional Collector also referred to a decision of the Delhi High court in Umrao Singh v. Man Singh wherein it is held that the Delhi Land Reforms Act does not apply to a land which was an evacuee property, The further appeals were filed against the order of the Additional Collector before the Financial Commissioner by the petitioners but the same were dismissed. The petitioners claiming rights under the Act have filed these writ petitions straightaway in this court stating that since there is an earlier judgment rendered by the High court against them, no useful purpose would be served by again filing writ petitions in the Delhi High court.

(3.) Pending the writ petitions, interim order was passed by this court granting stay subject to the condition that the writ petitioners should furnish security in a sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 towards the past profits in the trial court within two months from the date of the order and in respect of future profits the petitioners should deposit a sum of Rs. 1,500. 00 and also furnish security in the sum of Rs. 1,500. 00 every year in the trial court. It appears that the writ petitioners offered their residential houses as security and the same was accepted by the Assistant Collector namely the trial court. The landowners namely respondents were aggrieved because they were not given opportunity to raise objections. On that ground they sought that the stay should be vacated but the same was dismissed by this court. Thereafter the contesting respondents again sought the interference of the trial court but that was rejected on the ground that the Supreme court has already passed an order. Then they filed a revision petition and die Financial Commissioner directed the trial court to get the security point decided in terms of Section 60 Civil Procedure Code. That was challenged by the writ petitioners by filing a writ petition in the High court. a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High court allowed the writpetition. The respondents filed a letters' patent appeal but that was rejected. Therefore they have filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14867 of 1992 in this court a against the order of the High court. At this stage it may be mentioned that we are concerned mainly with the writ petitions filed under Article 32 and the Special Leave Petition arises in respect of the interim order passed in the. writ petitions. Therefore we need not deal with the questions involved in the Special Leave Petition namely sufficiency of the security etc.