RAMA NAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question of law which arises in this set of seven writ petitions (C.W.P. Nos. 158, 486 to 490 and 565 of 1980), is whether the tenant of the State Government in respect of agricultural land acquired by the State Government after 1st February, 1955, shall be governed by the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, (hereinafter called the 'Act') and can claim protection by virtue of Section 16 read with Section 9 of the Act and can avoid ejectment under the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act. 1887.

(2.) Raja Narinder Singh and others were the land-owners and the petitioners in the seven cases before us were their tenants since long before the coming into force of the Act. Raja Narinder Singh and others gifted the property in dispute to the Jhajjar Education Society, Jhajjar, by three separate registered gift deeds during the period 1958 to 1961. By another registered gift deed dated 2nd August, 1963, the Jhajjar Education Society, Jhajjar, gifted the property in dispute to the State of Haryana. The net result was that the petitioners became the tenants of the State of Haryana with effect from 2nd August, 1963.

(3.) After the State Government became the land-owner of the property in dispute, they started proceedings for ejectment of the petitioners under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Recovery) Act. 1959, and finally obtained orders of their ejectment. The petitioners filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the orders of ejectment on the ground that since they were tenants, no proceedings under that Act could be taken against them under the 1359 Act. At the hearing of those writ petitions, the State Government gave an undertaking that they would not implement the orders of ejectment, with the result that the writ petitions became infructuous. Thereafter, the State Government filed applications, under Section 42(b), 43 and 45 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. 1887. against the petitioners before, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Jhajjar, for their ejectment. The petitioners took up the defence that the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, was not applicable to them as they had the protection of the Act which had the overriding effect and, therefore, they could not be ordered to be ejected under that Act. On the contrary, the stand of the State Government was that in view of Section 21 of the Act, the Act was not applicable to the land in dispute which came to be owned by the State Government and, therefore, the petitioners could not rely on any provision of the Act. The Assistant Collector upheld the contention of the petitioners and dismissed the applications and vacated the notices of ejectment issued against the petitioners by order dated 26th Now. 1976, copy Annexure P. 1. In doing so, he followed a decision of the Financial Commissioner in Bachan Singh v. Sardarni Rupinder Kumari. 1961 Pun LJ 18. The State Government took the matter in appeal and revision before the Collector and Commissioner in which they failed vide orders Annexures P. 2 and P. 3 respectively. Then a further revision was filed before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The Financial Commissioner took a view contrary to Bachan Singh's case (supra) and held that even if transfer of the property to the State Government is made after 1st February, 1955, the provisions of the Act would not come to the rescue of the petitioners and they would not be entitled to the benefit of Section 16 of the Act as the Act would be wholly inapplicable, by virtue of Section 21 of the Act, with the result that the revisions filed by the State Government were allowed by order dated 23rd November, 1979, (copy Annexure P. 4) and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector to decide the same on merits. The petitioners filed the present writ petitions to impugn the order of the Financial Commissioner initially, the writ petitions came up for consideration before me sitting singly and in view of the importance of the matter and conflicting view of the Financial Commissioner, the matter was ordered to be heard by a larger Bench and that is how these writ petitions have been placed before us for final disposal.