SHIV CHARAN Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference to the Full Bench has been necessitated on account of an order made by N.K. Sud, J. on 10.9.2001.

(2.) THE matter arises out of the following facts :- The petitioner, Shiv Charan, filed a suit under Section 77(3)(d) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (hereinafter called the Act) against respondent No. 5 Sham Lal in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Ballabgarh claiming the status of an occupancy tenant under Sections 5 & 8 thereof. The Assistant Collector dismissed the suit vide his order dated 27.10.1989 (Annexure P-1 to the petition). The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Collector, Faridabad was, however, allowed by order dated 19.11.1991 (Annexure P-2) and it was held that he was an occupancy tenant on the land in question. Respondent No. 5 thereupon filed an appeal against the order (Annexure P-2) before the Commissioner Gurgaon circle, which was dismissed on 20.11.1992 vide order annexure P-3. He thereafter filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, pleading for the first time that a suit for declaration of occupancy rights lay in a civil and not in a Revenue Court after the promulgation of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the 'Vesting Act') as held by this Court in Puran Lal Aggarwal and others v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 1992(2) RRR 239 (P&H) : 1992 PLJ 574. The Financial Commissioner accordingly allowed the revision vide order dated 2.12.1998 (Annexure P-4 to the petition) ignoring the judgment of another Single Bench in Jiwan v. Ram Sarup, 1998(1) RCR(Civil) 477 (P&H) : 1998(1) PLJ 38 (S.B.) cited before it by stating that the judgment in Puran Lal Aggarwal's case (supra) had not been brought to notice in the latter case. It is against the order (Annexure P-4) that the present writ petition was filed by the tenant. 2.1 The matter came up for hearing before N.K. Sud, J., who noticed that there was a conflict of opinion with regard to the issue involved between two Single Bench judgements of this Court, i.e. Puran Lal Aggarwal's case (supra), which had relied on a Division Bench of this Court in Amin Lal v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana and others, 1971 PLJ 619, in which it had been held that it was the Civil Court alone and not the Revenue Court which had the jurisdiction to determine the dispute in such matters and the judgment in Omkar Singh and others v. Nirmal and others, 2000(3) RCR(Civil) 218 (P&H) : 2000(2) PLJ 107, whereby the learned Single Judge had opined to the contrary after noticing (though not opining on) the judgment in Amin Lal's case (supra) and as such this matter needed to be considered by a Larger Bench. It is in this situation that the present matter has come before the Full Bench.

(3.) WE have accordingly heard the learned counsel for the parties in extenso.