PRITHVI RAJ Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are landowners. An ex parte order for the eviction of the respondent-tenant was passed on November 5, 1990. On coming to know, the tenant prayed that the order be set aside. The prayer was accepted. The appeal etc. filed by the petitioner were dismissed. Now, they pray that the orders dated May 2, 2000, August 22, 2000 and September 21, 2000 passed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner be set aside. Copies of these orders have been placed on record as Annexures P-5, P-6 and P-8 respectively. The petitioners allege that the three orders are wholly illegal and pray that these be quashed.

(2.) A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed. The petitioners filed an application under Section 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, for the eviction of respondents No. 5 and 6 on the ground that they had not paid the rent for the land measuring 8 Kanals which was in their possession. The application was accepted by the Assistant Collector by an ex parte order dated November 5, 1990. Copy of this order is at Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. In the year 1998 the respondent-Sucha Singh filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector. It was pleaded that "the impugned order has been procured by the landlord/respondent No. 1 by practising fraud on the Court as well as on the appellant and respondent No. 2". Respondent No. 2 therein was his brother who has been impleaded as respondent No. 6 in this case. In the appeal filed by him the claim was that he had not been served. He had not engaged the counsel who had purported to put in appearance on his behalf. The Memorandum of Appearance had been filed by the counsel without his knowledge or permission. He had not executed any Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Balbir Chand, Advocate, who had allegedly appeared on his behalf. Thus, the authority had erred in proceeding ex parte. On this basis it was prayed that the order dated November 5, 1990 which has been passed without a trial should be set aside and that he may be permitted to contest the application on merits. The application was heard by Dr. Mahabir Singh, I.A.S., the Collector. Vide order dated May 2, 2000, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-5 with the writ petition it was held that notice of the proceedings was not shown to have been served on the tenant. Thus, the action of the Assistant Collector in proceedings ex parte was illegal. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Commissioner vide his order dated August 22, 2000. A copy of this order is at Annexure P-6 with the writ petition. It was found that on the file no summons appear to have been issued to the tenant. Thus, the findings of the Collector were affirmed. Still not satisfied, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. It was dismissed vide order dated September 21, 2000. The findings of the Collector and the Commissioner have been affirmed. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-8 with the writ petition.

(3.) A perusal of the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities shows that they have unanimously come to the conclusion that no notice had been issued or served upon the tenants before they were ordered to be evicted. It was decided to proceed ex parte against them and they were ordered to be evicted. Nothing has been placed on record to show that this finding is not correct. It has not even been suggested that a notice was issued by the Assistant Collector for a particular date and that it had been served on the respondent-tenants. In this situation, it is clear that the respondents had no notice of the proceedings initiated by the petitioners and that the authority had proceeded ex parte without any justification whatsoever.