LAL CHAND Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions 5434 and 5435 of 2000 in which common questions of law and fact arise. For the sake of convenience, facts have been taken from CWP 5434 of 2000.

(2.) SMT . Saraswati Devi and Rajender Kumar respondent filed a suit for the recovery of 1/3rd batai amounting to Rs. 5292.90 from one Mota the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein for the crops from Kharif 1983 to Rabi 1987 in regard to the land in dispute situate in village Chautala, tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. The suit was contested by Mota on the plea that the land in question was tenants' remissible area (TPA) and that with the coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 the same vested in the State and, therefore, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :-

(3.) WE have heard counsel for the petitioners and are of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition. It was contended by the learned counsel that the land in dispute was TPA which vested in the State Government and, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. This plea has been negatived by all the courts below. It is true that in the jamabandi for the year 1952-53 the petitioners have been shown as old tenants but that by itself does not make the land in their possession as TPA. It was necessary for them to move an application asking for the allotment of the area as 'A' category tenants as they considered themselves eligible for the said allotment. Merely because the petitioners considered themselves eligible does not make the land under their cultivation as TPA without there being a specific order in that regard by a competent authority. TPA has to be specifically declared by a competent authority. There is nothing on the record to show that the land in dispute was ever declared as TPA in favour of the petitioners. In our view, the Financial Commissioner was right in holding that a tenant becomes the proprietor of the land only after the land is allotted to him under the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1976 and after the tenant had paid the first instalment of compensation determined and that till then he continues to be a tenant liable to pay rent. In the absence of any order declaring the area as TPA the courts below were right in decreeing the suit. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.