AMIN LAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under sections 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petition seeks quashing of order dated 23.11.1979 copy Annexure P-4 and order dated 26.12.1979 copy Annexure P-5. The case of the petitioner is that he is owner in possession of land measuring 142 kanals and 6 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Leelas, Distt. Bhiwani and respondent No.4 was tenant under the petitioner in 1970-71, on payment of Batai at the rate of ⅓rd of the produce of the land. However, respondent No.4 did not pay the batai for the crops of Kharif 1970 and Rabi 1971 and the petitioner was forced to move an application under section 14A(ii) of the Punjab security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against respondent No.4 in form 'M' prescribed by Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules 1956(hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs. 564.85 as the cost of the ⅓rd share of the Produce payable by respondent No.4. A notice was issued to respondent No.4 in form 'N' prescribed by the Rules, directing him to do any of the following 4 things within a month of the receipt of the notice:-

(2.) In the writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the orders Annexures P-4 and P-5 on the ground that the period of one month given to a tenant to pay the arrears of rent after receipt of the notice cannot be extended in any circumstances by any authority and if the tenant does not deposit the arrears of rent claimed by the landowner within the stipulated period of one month, an order of ejectment has to follow as a measure of penalty unless the tenant is successful in showing that he was not liable to pay the whole or any part thereof or had paid the amount or the land owner had refused to give a receipt for the amount paid. Respondent No.4 had failed to establish any one of the above ingredients in the present proceedings and as such there was no option for the Assistant Collector IInd Grade. Laharu but to order the eviction of respondent No.4 and the Assistant Collector IInd Grade had no jurisdiction to give the time for making the deposit within one month from the date of his order. The Collector had no jurisdiction to extend the period of making the deposit of arrears of rent while entertaining the appeal of respondent No.4 ex-parte. The last submission of the counsel is that the ex-parte interlocutory order passed by the Collector on 22.8.1984 is not binding upon him as that order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The order dated 22.8.1974 cannot be survived is it was passed ex-parte and the tenant's appeal was also dismissed. Mr. R.S.Mittal, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner has also contended that respondent No.l has erred in coming to the conclusion that the order Annexure P-3 passed by the collector amounts to an order of review of the earlier order of the Collector dated 22.8.1974. The order dated 22.8.1974, being void ab inito and in excess of the powers of the Collector could be ignored.

(3.) This writ petition was admitted in Feb., 1980 but the respondents have not filed any written statement and none appeared on their behalf. Therefore, a conclusion is drawn that they have nothing to say in the matter and they accepted allegations made in the writ petition.