AMIN LAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of a bunch of five connected writ petitions Nos. 670 to 674 of 1971, which raise common questions of law and are directed against the order dated 18th January, 1971, of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana, who accepting the revision petitions of the Respondents claiming to be occupancy tenants under the Petitioner remanded the case to the Assistant Collector to decide their status as such tenants. To appreciate the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to state a few facts.

(2.) AMIN Lal, writ Petitioner, in all the five writ petitions claims to be the purchaser by registered deeds said to have been executed in his favour in the year 1965 by the owners of different parcels of land on which private Respondents in these writ petitions claim to be occupancy tenants. The land is situate in village Mubarakpur, tahsil Jhajjar, district Rohtak. Occupancy rights in regard to agricultural land arise on the fulfilment of conditions stated in the relevant provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), as applicable to the State of Haryana and referred to hereinafter as the Tenancy Act. A tenant has a right of occupancy under Section 5 of the said Act in respect of the land occupied by him if he,

(3.) HAVING failed in the Civil Court to get a declaration of ownership, the Plaintiffs instituted suits in Revenue Courts for a declaration that they were the occupancy tenants of the land in dispute it being again pleaded by them that they were cultivating the land under the Defendant -landlords for over a hundred years without payment of any rent except the amount of land revenue, rates and cesses chargeable thereon. Further averments were that they had acquired occupancy rights under Section 5 of the Tenancy Act and if in any event that was held not to have been proved, they were tenants under Section 8 of the same Act. The plea of rights of occupancy under Section 8 was for the first time introduced in the Revenue Court. Section 8 is of a residuary nature and permits a person to establish a right of occupancy on any ground other than those specified in the preceding sections which specifically deal with the circumstances under which an occupancy right could be created. The landlord Amin Lal, writ -Petitioner, had by then come in the picture as purchaser of the land from the landowners and he resisted the suits. Amongst several other pleas, one of the objections taken was that suits in the Revenue Court were barred by the principles of res judicata because the Civil Court had already given the finding that the Plaintiffs had not acquired occupancy rights in the suit land. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Jhajjar, dismissed the suits. It was held by him that the Civil Court was competent to decide the matter now raised before him and that in view of the decision of that Court, the present suits stood barred by the rule of res judicata. Appeals by the Plaintiffs to the Collector failed and they took the matter to the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) on the revisional side. The learned Financial Commissioner by a consolidated order, dated 18th January, 1971, allowed the five revision petitions filed by the Plaintiffs and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector directing him to proceed with the suits and decide the same in accordance with law. The view taken by him was that the matter of granting a declaration as to whether a person held occupancy rights or not fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Revenue Court and that the jurisdiction of a Civil Court was barred under Section 77(3)(d) of the Tenancy Act. The decision of the Civil Court was, therefore, in the opinion of the Financial Commissioner, of no avail and the Revenue Court could decide this question afresh. It is in these circumstances that the present five writ petitions have been preferred by Amin Lal, landlord, who is successor -in -interest of the previous land -owners.