HARKARAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the landlords. In the instant writ petition, they have challenged the order dated 29.11.2000 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide which, while setting aside the orders dated 21.1.1997 (Annexure P-10) and dated 11.8.1998 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, respectively, the application of the petitioners for ejectment of respondents No. 3 to 5 under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the owners of land measuring 85 Kanals 14 Marlas situated in Village Sugh, District Yamuna Nagar. Respondents No. 3 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as 'respondents- tenants') are their tenants on the aforesaid land since 1966. On 18.9.1990, Smt. Charanjit Kaur widow of Surjit Singh, Harkaran Singh and Jaskaran Singh sons of Surjit Singh, the petitioners and their predecessors (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioners-landlords'), filed an application on Form K-1 under Section 9 of the Act before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagadhri for ejectment of the respondents-tenants under clause (i) sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act on the ground that they are the small land owners and the respondents-tenants, who were inducted after the year 1956, are liable to be ejected from the land in question. In that application, it was pleaded by the petitioners-landlords they are the small land owners and they do not have any other land except the land in question mentioned in the application in any other village or in the State of Haryana since 1953. It was also pleaded that no land was declared surplus in their or their predecessors' hands. It was further pleaded that the respondents-tenants were owning land more than the petitioners-landlords. In this regard, it was mentioned that Mohinder Singh (respondent No. 3) was owner in possession of 58 kanals 9 marlas of land; Tejinder Singh (respondent No. 4) was owner in possession of 51 kanals 8 Marlas of land and Surinder Singh (respondent No. 5) was owner in possession of 53 Kanals 7 Marlas of land situated in the same village. In view of the aforesaid facts, it was pleaded that respondents-tenants were liable to be ejected from the land in question.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the aforesaid ejectment application, both the parties entered into an agreement to sell the land in question on 3.5.1992. Copy of the said agreement is Annexure P-3. In the said agreement, it was agreed that the land in question would be sold to the respondents-tenants at the rate of Rs. 1.50 lacs per acre. The respondents-tenants also agreed to pay Rs. 1 lac as earnest money to the petitioners-landlords. Out of this amount of earnest money, Rs. 50,000/- were paid to the petitioners-landlords on the same day i.e. on 3.5.1992 and the remaining amount of earnest money was to be paid upto 30.6.1992. It was further agreed that the balance amount of the sale consideration shall be paid by the respondents-tenants at the time of execution ofthe sale deed. The sale deed was to be executed in two parts. Regarding half share, the sale deed was to be executed upto 31.3.1993 and regarding the remaining share, it was to be executed by 31.12.1993. It was further agreed that in case the respondents-tenants do not get the sale deed executed within the time bound date the earnest money paid by them will be treated as forfeited, and the agreement to sell will be treated as cancelled; and in case the petitioners-landlords refuse to execute the sale deed as per terms of the agreement, the respondents-tenants will be at liberty either to get double the amount of earnest money or to get the sale deed executed in their favour through the Court. As per the agreement, the total sale consideration was Rs. 16,06,875/- whereas the respondents-tenants had paid only Rs. 50,000/- as part of the earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. Admittedly, after the execution of the aforesaid agreement to sell, the respondents-tenants never paid the remaining part of the earnest money nor a penny was paid towards the remaining sale consideration. It is also pertinent to mention here that after the execution of the agreement to sell, the respondents-tenants did not pay any Batai to the petitioners- landlords.