LAWS(P&H)-2000-12-72

SURINDER KUMAR Vs. V.P. JOHAR

Decided On December 21, 2000
SURINDER KUMAR Appellant
V/S
V.P. Johar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment of mine shall dispose of CWP Nos. 3038 and 3039 of 1980, as common question of law and common property is involved therein. CWP No. 3038 of 1980 arises out of a civil suit filed by Ramji Lal, father of respondents No. 3 to 6, for acquisition of occupancy rights in respect of land of Khasra No. 608 measuring 26 Bighas 9 Biswas against the landowners, whereas CWP No. 3039 of 1980 arises out of an application filed by the landowners for eviction of the tenant Ramji Lal son of Shiv Dayal under Section 9(1)(i) and (ii) read with Section 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, on the ground that the landowners were small landowners and the tenants had not paid rent regularly. This application for eviction was originally filed some time before 26.12.1969 when it was rejected. In appeal, the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar remanded the case by order dated 9.11.1970. After remand, the application for eviction was again rejected by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Bhiwani vide his order date 7.2.1973 (Annexure P-1 in CWP No. 3039 of 1980). In the meantime, the tenant (Ramji Lal) filed a suit on 4.12.1970 for acquisition of occupancy rights of the same land. This suit was decreed by the same Assistant Collector vide order dated 7.2.1973 (Annexure P-1 in CWP No. 3038 of 1980).

(2.) THE landowners filed appeal in both the cases decided by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Bhiwani, and the appeals were allowed by the Collector, Bhiwani, vide ordered dated 8.1.1974 by holding that the tenant respondent No. 1 (Ramji Lal) did not fulfill the conditions as laid down in section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and, therefore, had not acquired occupancy rights of the land in question. He also held that the appellant was a small landowner and, therefore, had a right to eject the tenant. Thereafter, the tenant Ramji Lal filed appeal against both the orders of the Collector before Commissioner, Hisar. The appeal arising out of the occupancy rights case was decided by the Commissioner on 21.2.1977 accepting the occupancy rights of the tenant. Vide order dated 28.3.1977 the appeal arising out of the eviction proceedings was also accepted by the Commissioner merely on the ground that he had already granted occupancy rights to the tenant in respect of the same land. The judgment of the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, were upheld by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, in both the cases vide two separate judgments dated 28.5.1980 (Annexure P-4).

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.