POHIYA Vs. CHHABIL DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pohiya, who has filed this civil writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, was a tenant of Chhabil Dass, respondent No. 1, in respect of the land described in the petition. Chhabil Dass had gifted this land to his sons Arjan Dass and Ram Kishan, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, but this has not in any way affected the tenancy rights of the petitioner in the land.

(2.) The petitioner had filed a purchase application before the Assistant Collector, respondent No. 6, under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Act') against his landlords on 27.3.1963. Without going into the question whether the landlord's application for the petitioner's ejectment had been filed before or after this purchase application of the tenant, there was a time when both these cross-petitions were pending simultaneously before an Assistant Collector in the years 1964-65. In view of my decision in Smt. Dhan Kaur v. The Financial Commissioner Revenue, Haryana and others, 1970 PunLJ 370, the proceedings in these cross-petitions should have been consolidated by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, respondent No. 4, and the Revenue Officers subordinate to him. The Collector, respondent No. 5, had, therefore, rightly directed in his order dated 21.7.1965 (Annexure 'B' to the writ petition) that the landlord's ejectment application should be decided alongwith the tenant's purchase application under Section 18 of the Act. It hardly seems to make any difference that at different stages, one party or the other, was trying to have these proceedings delinked or separated. My decision in Dhan Kaur's case was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court and the case is reported at page 664 of the same volume of the Punjab Law Journal. It is true that the petitioner had himself desired at one stage that these proceedings should be separated and this enabled the landlord to steal a march over the tenant by securing an order of eviction before a previously instituted purchase application of the tenant could be disposed of. This ejectment order would not, however, secure the landlord any advantage in view of a ruling of the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal v. The State of Punjab and others, 1970 PunLJ 812. It was observed by the Hon'ble Judges as follows :-

(3.) I, therefore, partly allow this civil writ petition and direct that respondent Nos. 4 to 6 shall proceed to hear the petitioner's purchase application under Section 18 of the Act and that the final decision shall remain unaffected by the order of eviction secured by the landlord or by the fact that the petitioner has already been dispossessed in execution of that order. Parties shall bear their own costs in this Court. Petition partly allowed.