GOPI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claiming to be tenants on the land in dispute, which belong to Shamlat Panna, preferred two separate appeals before the Collector, Fatehabad, against the orders dated 30th June, 1972 passed by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Fatehabad, sanctioning Mutation No. 57 in village Mothan Kalan vesting the land in dispute in the Gram Panchayat, under Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). The Collector vide his order dated 31st May, 1973, rejected their appeal and revision petitions filed against the aforesaid orders were also dismissed by the Commissioner, Hissar Division on 11th November, 1975. The petitioners took up the matter in further revision before the Financial Commissioner Haryana, but they remained unsuccessful when their revision was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 21st September, 1979. The order of the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Fatehabad dated 30th June, 1972, the order passed in appeal by the Collector dated 31st May, 1973, the order passed by the Revisional Authority i.e., Commissioner, Hissar Division, dated 4th November, 1975 and the order rejecting their further revision dated 21st September, 1979 have been impugned by the petitioners by way of the present writ petition.

(2.) It may be observed here that the petitioners in their Grounds of Appeal dated 18th October, 1972, in R.O.R. 83 of 1975-76 and dated 31st August, 1973 in R.O.R. 274 of 1975-76 before the Collector, had merely stated that they were tenants on the land in question. They had also filed civil suit before the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Fatehabad where the prayer was for the grant of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in their possession as the plaintiffs (petitioners) were cultivating the land as non-occupancy tenants for the last 25 years. The Gram Panchayat was restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioners as tenants on the land in question. The question that arises is whether the petitioners are interested persons or not ? The Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners were not interested persons as far as the question of sanctioning of mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat was concerned. As far as the mutation case was concerned, only a change of ownership was involved. The question of the status of the petitioners was, however, not changed by the mutation.

(3.) The learned Financial Commissioner rightly disallowed the petitioners to raise the point that apart from being tenants on the land in dispute, the petitioners in their capacity as members of the proprietary body of the Shamlat Panna, certainly were interested parties in the mutation concerning the change in the ownership of the land in question. This stand was radically different from their earlier stand taken before the Courts below. Before the Collector as also before the Civil Court, the petitioners' stand merely was that they were non-occupancy tenants of long standing on the land in question. The new stand required additional evidence to be led and since there was no plea to that effect, the learned Financial Commissioner was right in disallowing such a stand to be taken for the first time in the revision petition. Apart from that, there was nothing on the record before the Financial Commissioner to support the claim by the petitioners that apart from being tenants, they were also members of the proprietary body of the Parnna. The Civil Court, according to the judgment placed before the Financial Commissioner, had only declared that the Gram Panchayat will not dispossess the petitioners without due process of law. In the civil suit no issue was framed regarding the ownership of the land in question, and, therefore, the question of ownership was not decided by the Civil Court.