RAN SINGH Vs. BALRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, read with Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, for invoking the suo motu powers of the Financial Commissioner for setting aside the order of eviction passed against the petitioner.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondents became owners of 212 Kanals 6 Marlas of land in village Harita, Tehsil and District Hisar, on the basis of a decree dated 23.2.1994 obtained by them against the original owner of the land. He stated that the respondents filed various petitions for eviction of the petitioner, claiming batai for the period Kharif 1990 to Kharif 1994, for batai pertaining to the period from Kharif 1993 to Rabi 1994 and the third petition for batai for Rabi 1995 and Kharif 1995. He stated that the petitioner paid Rs. 64,765/- as batai from Kharif 1990 to Kharif 1994. He stated that the respondents filed an application for payment of batai for Rabi 1996, Rabi and Kharif 1997 and Rabi 1998. He stated that while making this claim, no details of amount were mentioned in respect of Rabi 1998, while the petitioner paid Rs. 28,970/- for the remaining three crops for which the batai had been quantified by the respondents. He stated that Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Hisar, vide his order dated 15.5.2000, ordered the eviction of the petitioner for non-payment of batai for Rabi 1998 and an appeal against this order was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 30.8.2000, and revision petition against this to the Commissioner was dismissed on 28.3.2002. The learned counsel stated that the decree on the basis of which the respondents claimed title to the suit property was not registered and was therefore void. He also stated that a compromise decree has to be registered if cost of land is more than Rs. 100/-. He stated that because of this, the respondents were not the landowners and have no locus standi to file the application. He stated that in any case, if the respondents claimed title on the basis of this decree, then they cannot claim batai for the period prior to that date which the petitioner has already paid. He stated that since this amount was over-paid to the respondents, this could easily have been adjusted towards the amount due for Rabi 1998. He stated that the respondents had not claimed a specific sum for Rabi 1998 whereas they have claimed a specific sum for the remaining three crops and therefore the petitioner could not be held guilty for non-payment of batai for Rabi 1998. He prayed that the order dated 28.3.2002 of the Commissioner may be set aside. He stated that there are rulings laying down that the amount of batai has to be mentioned necessarily. He stated that the rent has to be calculated by the Assistant Collector and mentioned in Form 'L' on the first day of hearing. He cited the following rulings in support of his arguments: Ved Parkash v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 1994(2) RRR 136 (P&H)(DB) : 1994(2) SLJ 981 : (1994 PLJ 120); Girdhari v. Shivala Bhut Nath and another, 1997(1) RCR(Civil) 23 (FCP) : 1997(1) PLJ 432; Ram Kishan and others v. Mast Ram and another, 1985 RRR 1 (P&H) : 1985 PLJ 574; Mam Chand Pal v. Shanti Agarwal, 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 326 (SC) : (2002)3 SCC 49.

(3.) I have examined the case in detail. The order dated 15.5.2000 of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Hisar and the order dated 30.8.2000 of Collector Hisar are detailed and I agree with the contentions mentioned therein. The petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for non-payment of rent for Rabi 1998 and it is nothing but wilful default. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner in this case and reject revision petition. To be communicated. Petition dismissed.