DALIPA Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are cultivating 46 Kanals 13 Marlas of land (detailed in the writ petition) situated in village Agampur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar, as tenants under respondents Nos. 3 to 6. The respondents filed an application under Section 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act') on the 30th July, 1969, for the ejectment of the petitioners on the ground that they had not paid rent regularly without sufficient cause for the harvests : Kharif 1967, Rabi 1968 and Kharif 1968, and further their application for realisation of rent for Rabi 1969 was still pending. This application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide order dated the 16th October, 1971 (Annexure 'J'). The respondents filed appeal which was accepted by the Collector vide order dated the 29th December, 1971 (Annexure K). The petitioners preferred an appeal against the order of the Collector and the same was accepted by the Commissioner Patiala Division by order dated the 22nd May, 1972 (Annexure L). The respondents feeling aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner filed a revision which was accepted by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated the 24th October, 1972 (Annexure 'M'). The Financial Commissioner set aside the order of Commissioner and upheld that of the Collector, ordering the ejectment of the petitioners. The petitioners have assailed the order of the Collector (Annexure 'K') and that of the Financial Commissioner (Annexure 'M') in the present writ petition.

(2.) The Financial Commissioner has found that the share of the respondents for Kharif 1968 was not paid in time and on the application filed by them under Section 14-A(ii) it was paid by the petitioners on the 2nd July, 1969. It has again been found that the arrear of the respondents for Rabi 1969 was also not paid in time and on their application under Section 14-A(ii) of the Act, it was paid by the petitioners on the 27th August, 1969. The case of the petitioners before the Financial Commissioner was that the petitioners had been issuing notices to the respondents for receiving their shares of the crops but the same were not accepted by them. The delay in the payment of shares of the respondents was therefore not on account of any fault on their part. The Financial Commissioner has held that the petitioners had been sending notices to the respondents to receive the rent but they did not avail of the remedy provided under Section 14-A(iii) of the Act. The petitioners are, therefore, liable to be ejected.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that no notice was ever received by the respondents for receiving the share of the crop from the petitioners. The argument proceeds that even if the petitioners had sent such notices they have been rightly ordered to be ejected because they did not file application under Section 14-A(iii) of the Act.