G H ORD Vs. RAJ MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Judge allowed the petition filed by the respondents under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition was directed against the final Order of the Financial Commissioner (Annexure 'D') ordering, eviction of the petitioners (tenants) from an area measuring 38 Kanals 19 Marlas.

(2.) The respondents, who were petitioners in this Court before the learned Single Judge, were, - cultivating land measuring 63 Kanals 3 Marlas in village Rajkot, Tehsil Hansi, District Hissar. This land is owned by Mrs. G.H. Ord. She applied to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade for eviction of the petitioners from the land and by his order dated 12th October, 1965, the Assistant Collector ordered the eviction of the petitioners only with regard to an area measuring 38 Kanals 19 Marlas. The prayer regarding the remaining area was refused. This order did not satisfy either of the parties and was taken up in appeal to the Collector. The appeal failed. It was then taken up in revision to the Commissioner, Ambala Division. The Commissioner recommended to the Financial Commissioner that the order of eviction with regard to 38 Kanals 19 Marlas be set aside. However, the financial Commissioner did not accept the recommendation and affirmed the order of the Collector, with the result that the revision to the Commissioner was rejected by the Financial Commissioner.

(3.) It may be mentioned that the entire controversy before the Revenue authorities was that certain piece of land measuring 59 Kanals 6 Marlas was vacant (khali) and was under the cultivating possession of the landowner and that this area should have been included in the reserved area of the landowner under Section 5 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The fact that the said area was under the cultivation of the landowner was not accepted by any of the authorities excepting the Commissioner, but the Commissioner nowhere said that the land was under the personal cultivation of the landowner in any of the harvest in the Khasra Girdawari. He merely interpreted the word 'khali' as was done by the other revenue authorities but disagreeing with them concluded therefrom that 'khali' does not necessarily mean not under the personal cultivation of the landowner.