BHAG DEVI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application dtd. 11/1/2007 was filed by respondent No. 5 for eviction of petitioners-tenants under Sec. 9(1)(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that he was a small land owner. An amended written statement dtd. 30/9/2011 was filed on behalf of the petitioners stating that he was not a small land owner. The eviction application was allowed vide order dtd. 30/3/2012 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and the petitioners were ordered to be ejected. It was held that respondent No. 5 was proved to be a small land owner on the basis of statement of the concerned Patwari and the petitioners had failed to produce any evidence to the contrary. It was also found that the petitioners were holding more than 5 standard acres of land. Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed vide order dtd. 4/12/2012 passed by the Collector and revision was dismissed vide order dtd. 9/7/2013 passed by the Commissioner. Further revision before the Financial Commissioner also failed. It was dismissed vide order dtd. 11/8/2016.

(2.) Meanwhile, the petitioners purchased 12 kanals of land out of the land in dispute vide two registered sale deeds both dtd. 3/7/2013. On the same day the petitioners executed a relinquishment deed in respect of the remaining land in dispute i.e. 36 kanals 12 marlas. This relinquishment deed is under challenge in a civil suit instituted on 25/7/2013.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that application under Sec. 9(1)(i) of the Act was not maintainable in law as respondent No. 5 had not been declared to be a small land owner. In support of this argument reliance has been placed upon Jugti vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, 1986 PLJ 852 and judgment dtd. 17/11/2020 passed in CWP No. 6392 of 1999 titled as Brij Lal through LRs and others vs. State of Haryana and others and two connected cases. It has also been contended that the order of ejectment is illegal also because no order of re-settlement under Sec. 10-A of the Act was passed nor any compensation was granted under Sec. 70 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act').