SATPAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is cultivating the land measuring 8 kanals comprised in Rectangle No.73 situated in Village Kunjpura, District Karnal. The petitioner is a tenant on 1/3rd batai. He states that he does not own any other land and is not even a tenant. Respondent No.5 filed an application on Form K-1 under Section 9(1)(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short, "1953 Act") on 13.6.1991. The prayer was for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he is a small land owner. The petitioner contested the said application and raised an objection about the maintainability of the same. Assistant Collector Ist Grade, however, passed an order evicting the petitioner on 31.10.1995 subject to his re-settlement on the surplus land. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Collector, who accepted the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. As per the petitioner, this order attained finality and was not challenged by respondent No.5.

(2.) It is averred that respondent No.5 again filed an application for eviction on Form K-1 under 1953 Act. This was again contested by the petitioner. This time, Assistant Collector Ist Grade rejected the application, holding that respondent No.5 is not a small land owner. Against this order, respondent No.5 filed an appeal before the Collector, Karnal, which was dismissed on 27.7.2005. As per the Collector, the fact that respondent No.5 is a small land owner, is not determined by the competent authority under the 1953 Act. It is averred that this fact is required to be determined under Section 4 of the Haryana Ceiling on Lands Holdings Act, 1972 (for short, "1972 Act") by the Prescribed Authority. Respondent No.5 then appealed against this order before the Commissioner, who allegedly has passed a non-speaking and cryptic order while accepting the revision and set-aside the order of the Collector. The Financial Commissioner rejected the revision filed by the petitioner on 18.2.2008. The petitioner accordingly has approached this Court through present writ petition.

(3.) The sole grievance raised by the petitioner is that status of respondent No.5 as a small land owner has to be first determined by the competent authority before any eviction of the petitioner can follow. Counsel for respondent No.5, however, submits that the Commissioner has only remanded the case to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and he has now to determine the dispute between the parties. It is conceded before me that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade is the Prescribed Authority under 1972 Act to determine the status of a person as a small or big land owner. Once the case has been remanded back to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, while considering the prayer for ejectment, he would also determine this issue so that the lis is brought to an end finally.