KARTAR SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 5 despite service. Prayer in this writ petition is for quashing the order dated 5.8.1991, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) whereby he allowed the revision filed by respondent No. 5 and set aside the orders dated 12.9.1985 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, dated 28.2.1986 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Amritsar, and the order dated 19.7.1988 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jallandhar Division, Jalandhar.

(2.) Brief facts are that father of petitioners No. 1 and 2, namely, Natha Singh was a big land owner and his tenant was one Chanan Singh. Some land of Natha Singh was declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short "the Act") and allotted to Chanan Singh under Section 10-A of the Act. However, Chanan Singh did not fulfill the requirement of Rule 20-C of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short "the Rules"). Thereafter, the landlord filed a petition before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amritsar, for ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he had not paid the rent. Another supervening factor was that Chanan Singh died issueless and widow-less and respondent No. 5 claimed to have stepped into his shoes as legatee. The non-payment of rent was also not disputed. The Assistant Collector, vide order dated 9.8.1982, directed ejectment of Chanan Singh. Thereafter, Chanan Singh filed an appeal against the order dated 9.8.1982 which was allowed by the Collector, vide order dated 31.1.1983 and the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade with a direction that both the parties be given full opportunity and the case be decided afresh after perusing the surplus file of Natha Singh (big land-owner). The Assistant Collector, after going through the entire evidence and hearing both the parties, vide his order dated 12.9.1985 (Annexure P-1), maintained his earlier order dated 9.8.1982. Chanan Singh filed an appeal against the order dated 12.9.1985 before the Collector Amritsar, who dismissed the same, vide order dated 28.2.1986 (Annexure P-3). Revision filed against the aforesaid orders was also dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division, vide order dated 19.7.1988. In the meantime, the Collector Agrarian Ferozepur, while determining the surplus case of Natha Singh, issued notice under Section 9 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 to petitioner No. 2, who filed objection to the said notice. The Collector (Agrarian) Ferozepur, vide his order dated 4.5.1983 (Annexure P-4) ultimately withdrew the said notice issued to petitioner No. 2. Meanwhile, Chanan Singh died and Balkar Singh (respondent No. 5) stepped into his shoes. Feeling aggrieved against the order (Annexure P-3), respondent No. 5 filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). The said revision petition having been allowed, the petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) held that onus to fulfill conditions of Rule 20-C of the Rules lay upon the landlord because it was for the landlord to approach the Assistant Collector who would then call upon the tenant to execute the Kabuliyatnama. The Financial Commissioner further held that Chanan Singh being re-settled tenant improved his status after coming into force of the Punjab Land Reforms Act and become an owner and consequently rejected the eviction petition.