DARA SINGH Vs. CHANDER PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case present respondent-landowner made an application to the Assistant Collector, Karnal for ejectment of present petitioner-tenant in Form K-1 claiming himself to be a small landowner and also alleging that the present petitioner-tenant was holding more than 5 S.As of land other than the land under his tenancy. The Assistant Collector held that the landowner was a small landowner and the tenant had more than 5 S.As. of land other than the land in question which the tenant later transferred to his sons and therefore, ordered ejectment of the tenant from the land. In appeal, the Collector concurred with the findings of the Assistant Collector and dismissed the appeal. Tenant went in revision before the Commissioner Rohtak who has referred the case to this Court for acceptance of revision and remand of the case to the Assistant Collector to take fresh evidence and determine whether the landowner was a small landowner under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act taking into account the holdings of his family members.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of both parties and have also perused the entire record. The landowner in filing his application in Form K-1 has given all the details required in the form and they remained un-controverted. The present petitioner-tenant made a very vague defence that the landowner had not disclosed his entire holdings and he held some other lands also in the districts of Hissar, Gurgaon, Karnal and Faridabad. No details about all these lands relating to their location or their quantity were given by the tenant. He did not even mention the names of the villages where the land was situated in these four districts. In evidence the landowner himself appeared and categorically denied the allegation of the tenant that he held any other land except the land in question. Neither in the written statement of the tenant nor in cross-examination of the landowner was any question raised about the holdings of any other family member of the landowner. The Assistant Collector on the basis of evidence led held that the landowner was a small landowner. In the proceedings before the Assistant Collector, no question whatsoever was raised about the holdings of any other family member of the landowner. The allegation of some other holdings of the landowner was totally vague and unsubstantiated. Even in the grounds of appeal before the Collector, the tenant never made any allegation of landowner or any other member of his family holding any other lands except reiterating the same vague allegation of landowner holding some other lands in four districts as mentioned above.

(3.) There is no doubt that after coming into force of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, the landowner has to be a small landowner both under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act for ejectment of the tenant under Form K-1. The column in Form K-1 requires the disclosure of the land in the ownership of the applicant. This form has not been amended after coming into being of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Therefore, it seems implied that when a landowner would disclose his holdings in Form K-1 he has also to disclose his holdings in terms of family holdings under the Haryana Ceiling on Land holdings Act in the same column of the same Form. It follows that unless contended otherwise by the tenant this holding has to be taken to be holding of the landowner's family also under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Therefore, it would be necessary, once the declaration has been made by the landowner, for the tenant to make a credible allegation of this declaration being substantially wrong so as to create a doubt about the assertion of the landowner that he is a small landowner. The present petitioner-tenant has failed to discharge this burden. Therefore, he has no case and the reference of the Id. Commissioner has to be declined.