RAM KUMAR Vs. RAM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE six revision petitions have been filed under section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 against the order dated 28.2.2001 passed by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak whereby the revisions petitions filed against the order dated 25.11.99and 14.12.98 passed by Collector Sonepat and A.C.I.G., Sonepat have been dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts of these case are that some cases were filed before A.C.I.G. Sonepat by landowner-respondents against the tenant-petitioners that the petitioners had been continuing as tenant on payment of a very meagre fixed rent and since long. It was pointed out that now a days due to improvement in agriculture methods the produce has increased many folds. Consequently the fixed rent may be converted into 1/3rd batai and the petitioners may be directed to execute Kubliatnamas accordingly. After taking evidence of the parties and hearing them A.C.I.G., Sonepat vide his order dated 31.7.97 came to the conclusion that the prevalent rent in the region is 1/3rd of the produce and directed the petitioners to execute Kubliatnamas within a period of 30 days. The appeals of petitioners Suraj Mal etc. and Asha Ram etc. were dismissed by Collector Sonepat vide two separate orders dated 19.2.98. The appeals preferred by the remaining petitioners in three revision petitions bearing No. 61, 62 and 63 of 2000 were also dismissed by him by a common order of even date. The aggrieved party filed revision petition before Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak who vide his order dated 28.2.2001 found no substance in any of said revision petitions and the same were dismissed. Hence these six revision petitions.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents rebutted the version of the counsel for the petitioner and argued that the maximum rent can be fixed as 1/3rd batai of the produce as per section 12 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1963. He contended that in case the tenant refused to sign Kabuliatnama thus he can be ejected from the disputed land as per provision made under section 9 of the Act. He quoted 1991-PLJ Page-778 according to which in case rate of customary rent is not established, the landlord is entitled to claim 1/3rd batai as rent under section 12 of the Act and Kabuliatnama must be executed at the rate of 1/3rd batai as rent. So far order in ROR No. 186 of 1998-99 is concerned, the tenants had filed civil suit much prior to the filing of the applications by the landlord seeking enhancement of the rent. The learned counsel further argued that the civil court cannot give occupancy rights and it is only the revenue court which has the competency in this regard. He stated that 1/3rd batai is based on the actual produce of the disputed land. When there is no produce because of river action then the question of 1/3rd batai does not arise. It was argued that the price of land has increased considerably in recent times. So it is necessary to fix 1/3rd batai of the disputed land. Concluding his arguments he prayed that these revision petition may be dismissed.