JEEVAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition must succeed on the well-settled principles of res judicata. It has been averred that the three petitioners are small land-holders in their village Gollagarh, district Hissar and respondent No. 2 Jai Ram was a tenant of their land who had further sub let a portion thereof to respondent No. 3 Sheo Narain. The petitioners moved an application for ejectment of the above two respondents under Section 9-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act basically on the ground that they were small land-holders and as such were entitled to eject their tenants. Vide Annexure 'A', the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, by his order dated the 26th of November, 1963, allowed the said application expressly on the ground that the petitioners were small land-holders. It is not in dispute that no appeal or revision was preferred by the two respondents against that order which became final and it has been further averred on behalf of the petitioners that in execution of the same the respondent-tenants were dispossessed in due course and physical possession of the land was secured by the petitioners. However, the respondents had also filed an application under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act for the purchase of the land 'allegedly comprised in their tenancy and this was also dismissed by the Assistant Collector. An appeal against this order, however, was carried by the respondents before the Collector who allowed the same vide his order, annexure, 'B', on the ground that the petitioners were big landowners despite the fact that this issue had become res judicata between the parties by the earlier decision, annexure 'A', which had achieved finality by being not the subject-matter of challenge. Aggrieved the petitioners went up in appeal to the Commissioner, who, however dismissed the same by his order of the 10th of January, 1967, which is attached as annexure 'C' to the petition. On the grounds annexed as D.1 the petitioners moved the Financial Commissioner in revision who, however, dismissed the same by a cryptic order vide annexure 'D' dated the 2nd September, 1967.

(2.) In the reply filed on behalf of both the respondents it is in terms admitted in paragraph 3 thereof that no appeal or revision was preferred by the respondents against the order, annexure 'A'. The broad factual position is not disputed but the legal averments in the petition have been controverted.

(3.) Mr. Thapar in support of the petition contends that on the accepted principles of constructive res judicata, the finding of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, to the effect that the petitioners were small land-owners had become final and binding between the parties. No appeal having admittedly been preferred against the same, it was forcefully contended that thereafter no contrary finding could be arrived at or given by the revenue authorities.