TARA CHAND Vs. S K CHHIBBER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of agricultural land in village Mukandpur, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh, of which respondent 2 is the tenant. Respondent 2 filed an application under Section 10 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, to Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Narnaul, for fixation of rent of the land under his tenancy. This application was filed on November 26, 1965, but it was not stated for which year or crop the rent was sought to be fixed. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Narnaul, after hearing the parties decided that Rs. 25/- per Bigha was the fair rent to be fixed and on that basis fixed the annual rent of the land at Rs. 180/- by an order, dated July 30, 1966. The petitioner filed an appeal against that order which was dismissed by the Collector, Mohindergarh, on March 27, 1967. Against that order the petitioner filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed on March 18, 1969. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed the present petition for the quashing of all the three orders mentioned above. Written statement has been filed by respondent 2 in which the impugned orders have been justified.

(2.) The Assistant Collector while appreciating the evidence produced before him with regard to the rate of rent, rejected the evidence of witnesses of both the parties. The petitioner's witnesses stated that the rent should be Rs. 100/- per Bigha, while the witnesses of respondent 2 stated that the fair rent was between Rs. 7/8/- and Rs. 10/- per Bigha. The Assistant Collector observed-" I am told that rent at about Rs. 25/- per Bigha is the prevalent rate in this locality." It has, however, not been disclosed in his order what was the source of his information. It was certainly not proper for him to have made enquiries at the back of the parties. The Assistant Collector while dealing with the application was exercising quasi-judicial powers and the principles of natural justice require that all enquiries affecting the interests of the parties must be held in their presence so that they have the opportunity to show that what is being stated is not correct. The petitioner had relied upon a judgment of the Revenue Court fixing the rent payable by respondent 2 to the petitioner for four crops from Rabi 1962 to Kharif 1963 at Rs. 850/-, according to which the average rent per crop came to Rs. 212.50, or Rs. 425/- per annum. The learned Assistant Collector did not take into consideration that judgment on the ground that it did not relate to the rent of the land for the year preceding the year for which the fixation of rent was being claimed. In appeal the Collector has remarked that "the learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, argued that the rent paid for the harvests Kharif 1964, Rabi 1965 and Kharif 1965 was Rs. 495.85 Paise." This was the plea put forth by the learned counsel for respondent 2, and this rent related to the year preceding the year for which the application was made. For this reason the enquiry should have been made whether the rent stated to have been paid for these crops was in fact the rent that was actually paid, and, on that basis, the rent could be fixed under Section 10(1)(b) of the Act. The Revenue Court which had determined the rent for the four crops from Rabi 1942 to Kharif 1963 came to the conclusion that on the basis of one-third of the produce of the land, the rent came to Rs. 896.33, but since the petitioner had claimed Rs. 850/-, a decree for that amount was passed in his favour. Section 9 of the Act also provides that the maximum rent that can be fixed for the land should not exceed one third of its produce. It appears to me that it is because of the provisions of that Section that the Revenue Court first determined what was the value of one third of the produce so that rent should not exceed that amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner has interpreted that judgment to plead that the rent agreed between the parties was on the basis of one-third Batai. In my opinion support cannot be had for that plea from this observation. If the rent had been fixed on the basis of one-third Batai, then the petitioner would have claimed not any specific amount but one-third of the produce, leaving it to the Revenue Court to determine the amount after determining the value of the produce. The petitioner claimed Rs. 850/- on account of rent and he was allowed that amount, which clearly shows that it was the cash rent that was being claimed by the petitioner and not on the basis of Batai whether one-half or one-third. In view of this evidence on the record, the Assistant Collector and the Collector were not justified in fixing the rent of the land at the rate of Rs. 25/- per Bigha, which was based on the information conveyed to the Assistant Collector by somebody whose identity has not been disclosed and which was against the evidence that had been brought on the record by the parties. The impugned orders evidently suffer from legal infirmities which are apparent on the face of the record. This petition is, therefore, accepted and all the three impugned orders are set aside. The Assistant Collector is directed to redetermine the amount of rent payable by respondent 2 to the petitioner in the light of the observations of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100/-. The costs will be paid by respondent 2 only because there is no appearance on behalf of the other respondent. Petition accepted.