PAWAN KUMAR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 23.08.1994 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Collector, Yamuna Nagar whereby, he came to the conclusion that it would be in the interest of justice to postpone the ejectment proceedings till the tenant was delivered back the possession of the disputed land and referred the matter to the Financial Commissioner. Further, challenge is also laid to the order dated 17.09.1996 wherein, the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) accepted the reference made by the Collector and ordered that the possession of the land in dispute should be first restored to the legal representatives of the tenant-Antu Ram and only thereafter, a decision should be taken on the ejectment proceedings before the Assistant Collector. A further direction was also issued that the Commissioner should enquire into the matter and fix the responsibility for non-compliance of order dated 06.07.1989 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana and send the case to the State Government for action against the erring revenue officers. A mandamus is also prayed for by the petitioners-land owners that the ejectment application in Form 'L' filed against respondents no. 5 to 7 by respondent no. 4-Gaushala Committee (Regd.), Ambala Cantt. should also be decided before the possession of the land is delivered to respondents no. 5 to 7, the legal representatives of the tenant Antu Ram. The issue thus, which stands to be decided in the present case is that whether the restitution of the tenants was rightly ordered by the Assistant Collector on account of the setting aside of the ejectment order. It is, thus, necessary to narrate the chequered history between the parties spanning over four decades.

(2.) The land in question was owned by the Gaushala Committeerespondent no. 4, who inducted one Antu Ram as tenant prior to 1969 who was the predecessor in interest of respondents no. 5 to 7 and had defaulted in making payment of batai. The application for ejectment was filed in Form 'L" which was allowed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Yamuna Nagar on 30.12.1970 and ejectment of Antu Ram was ordered. In pursuance of the execution, possession was delivered to respondent no. 4 on 11.08.1971, the owner at that point of time, who inducted Raghbir Saran, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners as a tenant. The appeal filed by Antu Ram was dismissed on 11.11.1971 by the Collector on the ground that it was barred by limitation and the said order was confirmed by the Collector in appeal on 14.02.1972. However, the Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 13.02.1978 came to the conclusion that the appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector should not have been dismissed as time barred by the Collector who should have treated the same as a revision since there was a miscarriage of justice. He accepted the revision petition and set aside the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner and remanded the case to the Collector for decision afresh. In pursuance of the order of remand, the Collector also remanded the case on 10.07.1978 on the ground that the land owner had filed two cases in Form 'L' and Form 'K' and the reply which the cultivator had given was to Form 'K' and was attached with the file of Form 'L' and thus, directed that opportunity for evidence be given and the case be decided on the basis of merits.

(3.) Antu Ram, thereafter filed an application under Section 144 CPC for restitution on the ground that the ejectment order had been set aside and he should be delivered possession to which objections were filed by Raghbir Saran, the then tenant. The Assistant Collector ordered the restitution of possession on 30.10.1984 which was challenged by Ragbhir Saran and dismissed by the Collector on 09.09.1985 and the order was upheld by the Financial Commissioner on 06.07.1989. Thereafter, the warrant of possession was issued on 15.12.1989 for delivering possession to the legal representative of Antu Ram (Krishan Chand/respondent no. 5) and an application came to be filed by Raghbir Saran that the proceedings on the application be stayed till the ejectment application was decided, which was allowed by the Assistant Collector on 23/26.03.1991. Thereafter, Krishan Chand moved an appeal against the order, which was accepted by the Collector on 26.12.1991, which was then challenged by Raghbir Saran and the Gaushala Committee in the Court of the Commissioner and was dismissed on 07.06.1994. The property was purchased during the interregnum period on 15.12.1993 by Raghbir Saran. On 08.07.1994, Krishan Chand moved an application before the Assistant Collector that ejectment proceedings be stayed till the possession is restored back and he be permitted to tender the rent. The Assistant Collector, vide order dated 21.07.1994, directed that the application would be heard at the time of decision on the ejectment application which was challenged by the tenants before the Collector, who then passed the impugned order dated 23.08.1994 with a direction that the ejectment proceedings be postponed till the tenant was delivered back the possession of the disputed land. On 04.10.1994, CWP No. 12210 of 1994 was filed by Smt. Raj Kali, widow of Raghbir Saran alongwith her children including petitioners no. 1 to 3 was dismissed wherein, challenge was laid to the order dated 26.12.1991 whereby the appeal of Krishan Chand had been allowed against the order of the Assistant Collector staying the delivery of possession. Challenge was also made in the writ petition to the order dated 07.06.1994 whereby, the Commissioner upheld the order dated 26.12.1991 and held that the revenue authorities were only taking action as per law. Thereafter, the revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 17.09.1996 (Annexure P-3).