ABDUL REHMAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS had been cultivating an area of 46 kanals 2 marlas in village Bisru, District Gurgaon as tenants on a fixed annual rent under the land owners who are respondents 6 to 14. On an application filed by the landowners the petitioners were ordered to be evicted under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short the Act) by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ferozepur Jhirka as per order dated 29.12.1981. In terms of SEction 9-A of the Act the ejectment was subject to their resettlement on a surplus area and the petitioners were entitled to retain their possession over the land in dispute till they were resettled. An area of 75 kanals 8 marlas in village Nasirbaas was allotted by the prescribed authority to the petitioners and by memo dated 29.6.1987 the Tehsildar Ferozepur Jhirka was directed to deliver possession of the same to the petitioners. He was also directed to submit his report regarding delivery of possession. It is common case of the parties that the petitioners refused to accept this allotment. It is alleged by the petitioners that 56 kanals out of the aforesaid surplus area already stood allotted to one Munshi son of Chandu and his son Fazru who were in actual cultivating possession thereof and, therefore, the petitioners refused to accept the allotment. Thereafter, the land owners (respondents 6 to 14) filed an application before the Assistant Collector seeking execution of the order of ejectment passed on 29.12.1981. Notice of this application was issued to the petitioners who filed their objections and stated that since they had not been resettled on any surplus area they could not be dispossessed from the land in dispute and that they were entitled to retain its possession. It was also pleaded that the land owner of the surplus land which was allotted to the petitioners had filed a civil suit which was decreed in his favour and the allotment stood reverted to the land owner and, therefore, the petitioners could not be resettled thereon. Both the contentions raised by the petitioners did not find favour with the Assistant Collector who dismissed the objections and ordered warrants of possession to be issued in favour of the land owners. The Assistant Collector found that the suit referred to by the petitioners had been filed by the plaintiff in the year 1989 whereas they refused to accept the allotment of surplus area on 20.7.1987 and, therefore, their plea that a suit had been filed had no force. It was further held that the petitioners as tenants made no efforts to have surplus land allotted to them ever since they were ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute and for this reason as well they were not entitled to retain the possession. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed. A revision petition filed before the Commissioner also met with the same fate and the Financial Commissioner, too, by his order dated 2.1.1996 dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners upholding the execution of the order of ejectment. It is against these orders that the present writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of ceriorari quashing the impugned orders.

(2.) WE have heard counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were ordered to be evicted from the land under their possession as tenants on 29.12.1981 subject to their resettlement on some surplus area. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were allotted an area of 75 kanals 8 marlas of surplus land in village Nasirbaas which they refused to accept. The reason which they gave for not accepting the land allotted to them is that the land owner had filed a suit in the civil court challenging the declaration of the surplus area which was decreed. No doubt, the suit had been decreed to a limited extent and the State government had been directed to take into consideration the standard holding of the plaintiff therein but that decree did not effect the declaration of the surplus area nor did the land revert back to the land owner. Moreover, the suit was instituted in 1989 whereas the petitioners had refused to accept the allotment of the surplus area much before that in July, 1987. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the area offered to the petitioners already stood allotted to one Munshi son of Chandu and his son Fazru also cannot be accepted because as stated in para 5 of the written statement filed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, the allotment in favour of Munshi and Fazru had been cancelled on 24.7.1984 and that the said land was available for allotment to the petitioners. In spite of the cancellation, a wrong entry was made in favour of Munshi and Fazru in the jamabandi for the year 1985-86 and the petitioners are trying to take advantage of that wrong entry. The prescribed authority under the Act asked the revenue authorities to correct the said entry on the basis of the order of cancellation and reminders, too, were sent to that department. We are, therefore, satisfied that the land offered to the petitioners was available and they were not justified in refusing to accept that allotment.

(3.) THUS , from whatever aspect the matter is looked at, the authorities below were right in issuing the warrants of possession in favour of the land owners for the eviction of the petitioners in execution of the order of ejectment. Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.