RAM BAKSH Vs. SHYAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed before the Commissioner, Hisar Division who vide his order dated 4th August, 1999 has referred to this Court for accepting the revision petition. The Commissioner has recommended that the order of the Collector dated 31.3.1997 is not legally tenable that the same may be set aside. He has further recommended for remanding the case back to Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Ellenabad for decision on merit.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that Dev Dutt Sharma father of the revisionist made an application on Form 'K-l' before Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ellenabad for the ejectment of the tenant Sohan lal etc. the respondents in the present revision petition. Sh. Dev Dutta Sharma claimed that he was a small landowner and had succeeded to the land ownership as a successor dholidar of the land. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade rejected the application on the ground that the dholidar is not the owner of the land and on the death of the original dholidar Smt. Shera the land has reverted back to the original owners. The Collector on appeal came to the conclusion that the relationship of land owner and tenant has not been established and hence no ejectment can be ordered. He dismissed the appeal. The Commissioner has recommended the revision on the ground that the mutation in favour of the legal representatives of the original dholidar have been made final and presumption of truth is attached to Jamabandi. He has held that the relationship of land owner and tenant exist between the parties for the purpose of 'K-l'. He has recommended acceptance of the revision and remanding the case to Assistant Collector 1st Grade.

(3.) THE counsel for the respondents in the revision petition on the other hand rested his case mainly on the decision of the Division Bench in 1981 mentioned above. His contention was that the dholi cannot be inherited and that dholi bestows only a restricted right to collect rent for carrying out certain charitable or religious duties. He further argued that Assistant Collector 1st Grade can only take up a case for ejectment on the basis of a small land owner after the surplus cases have been decided. He also cited a number of rulings requiring that the question of relationship of land owner and tenant, wherever it is doubtful, has to be determined by a proper civil litigation and not in summary proceedings.