BAGHEL SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the orders of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 dated October 27, 1969 (annexure A), March 31, 1970 (annexure-B), December 17, 1970 (annexure-C), and September 6, 1972 (annexure-D).

(2.) The facts, as given in the petition are that the petitioner was a tenant under Gur Narjit Singh, a big landowner owning 1185 standard acres 3-3/4 Units of land, before the commencement of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Gur Narjit Singh died in 1961. The petitioner made an application to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Ferozepore, for purchase of some land which included the land in dispute. He, by his order, allowed the purchase application to the extent of 81 kanals 13 marlas. He, in compliance with the order of the Assistant Collector, deposited the first instalment of money in time and became an owner thereof. On appeal, by the respondent Nos. 5 to 11, the Collector modified the order of the Assistant Collector and dismissed the application of the petitioner regarding khasra Nos. 49/11 & 20, 61/17 & 18 measuring 22 kanals 2 marlas. The Commissioner, upheld the order of the Collector. In revision to the Financial Commissioner, it was held by him that if the area in dispute, as given above, had been selected by the landowners, the order of the Collector was good. In case the area in dispute had not been selected by the landowner, the petitioner would be entitled to purchase the same. The respondent Nos. 5 to 11, filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute under Section 14-A of the Act on February 25, 1969 before the Assistant Collector, Ferozepore, who accepted the application and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner, by order dated October 27, 1969 (Annexure-A). The same order was affirmed by the Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, by their orders, dated March 31, 1970 (annexure-B), December 17, 1970, (annexure-C), and, September 6, 1972 (annexure-D), respectively. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders. The private respondents have contested the petition and denied the allegations of the petitioner. It is stated by them that they filed revision petition before the Commissioner in purchase application, who upheld the order of the Collector, whereby the purchase application of the petitioner with respect to killa Nos. 49/11 & 20 and 61/17 & 18 had been dismissed. It is further stated by them that the petitioner failed to pay the rent for the harvests Kharif 1965 to Rabi 1967 with respect to the land in dispute and the order of ejectment was rightly passed by the authorities under the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land in dispute is within the petitioner's permissible area and, therefore, the respondent Nos. 5 to 11 could not file an application for ejectment regarding the said land. It has been held by all the authorities that the land in dispute forms part of the selected area of the landowners. In such a case, the ejectment of the petitioner could be ordered. It is nowhere provided in the Act that a tenant cannot be ejected from the land which forms part of his (tenant's) reserved area. Under sub-clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 a tenant can be ejected from the reserved area. The present application was filed by the landowners under Section 14-A of the Act for recovery of arrears of rent. Sub-clause (ii) of Section 14-A authorises the Court to order ejectment of the tenant from any land, in case the tenant does not pay the rent. In the circumstances, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and reject the same.

(3.) The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his application for purchase was remanded by the Financial Commissioner. He further states that during the pendency of the application for purchase, his ejectment could not be ordered. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner's application for purchase was once allowed by the Assistant Collector and he had deposited the first instalment. The counsel also states that there was sufficient cause for the petitioner for not paying the rent regularly. He, therefore, urges that the order of ejectment is not tenable under the law. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the application for ejectment was filed under Section 14-A(ii) of the Act. He further submits that the Financial Commissioner did not remand the case in purchase application as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.