DAULAT RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This LPA arises out of the order dtd. 19/8/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order dtd. 1/4/2019 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana whereby the revision filed by the petitioner, appellant herein, has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts as culled out from the paper book are that respondent No. 5-Ram Swaroop had filed an ejectment petition under Sec. 9 (i) (ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 in Form-L for eviction of appellant-Daulat Ram and his two brothers namely Dharampal-proforma respondent no.6 and Ghanshyam Dass- proforma respondent no.7 due to failure to deposit rent/batai for the crop kharif 1994 to Rabi 1997. Ejectment proceedings were initiated by the contesting respondent/landlord for recovery of rent of Rs.3,562.00 qua rented land measuring 8 Kanal 0 Marla. The appellant and his two brothers were proceeded against ex-parte on 22/6/1999. Thereafter, order of eviction dtd. 3/12/2009 was passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Bhiwani directing eviction of the appellant and his two brothers from the disputed land comprised in Murabba No.383, Killa No.16 (8-0) total measuring 8 Kanal 0 Marla. The said order was challenged by appellant-Daulat Ram and proforma respondent-Ghanshyam Dass by way of an appeal. The said appeal has been dismissed vide order dtd. 12/2/2013 by the Collector and the revision filed against the aforesaid order has also been dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dtd. 22/11/2016. The aforesaid orders were impugned in the writ petition filed by the appellant which has also been dismissed vide order dtd. 19/8/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Thus, this LPA has been filed against the said order of the learned Single Judge of this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is bad in the eyes of law. The learned Single Judge as also the Revenue Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant was never served in the ejectment proceedings as per the provisions of Sec. 90 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for short "the Act"). Thus, the learned counsel submits that the impugned orders are illegal and deserve to be quashed.