RUGHA RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VARINDER Nath, respondent No. 5 filed a petitioner under Section 9 -A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 against Kishna, the predecessor -in -interest of the present petitioners. He claimed that he was a smaller landowner. Thus, Kishan who owned more than 100 Kanals of land was liable to be evicted. This petition was allowed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide order dated May 15, 1991. A copy of this order has been . placed on record as Annexure P. 1, Aggrieved by the order, Kishna filed an appeal before the Collector. Vide order dated May 12, 1992 a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P.2, the Collector dismissed the appeal. Kishan filed a revision. It was dismissed by the Commissioner on June 16, 1992. A copy of this order has been placed on record as Annexure P.3. The revision petition before the Financial Commissioner also met with the same fate. It was dismissed vide order dated May 20, 1998. A copy of this order is on record as Annexure P.4. Aggrieved by the orders Annexures P. 1 to P.4, the sons of Kishna have approached this Court through the present writ petition. They pray that the orders, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P.1 to P.4, be quashed.

(2.) A written statement has been filed by respondent No. 5. The claim made by the petitioners has been controverted.

(3.) THE petition for eviction, as filed by respondent No =. 5 related to the land measuring 18 Kanais 1 Maria. It was allegedly comprised in rectangle No. 74 Killa Nos. 17, 18 and 19. The Jamabandi produced by the petitioners is not shown to be relating to this land; Still further the Revenue Authorities had recorded concurrent findings of fact that respondent No. 5 is a small landowner. It has also been found that Kishna, the predecessor -in -interest of the petitioners owned more than 100 Kanals of land. Thus, the claim of the respondent landowner for eviction of the predecessor -in -interest of the petitioners has been sustained in view of the provisions of Sections 9(1) and 9 -A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. No infirmity in the view taken by the Revenue Authorities has been pointed out. Thus, no ground for interference is made out.