GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants filed an application for the ejectment of Joginder Singh respondent No. 5 (tenant) (hereafter the respondent) on form 'L' under S.14-A(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, (hereafter the Punjab Act) from the land measuring 57 Kanals 10 Marlas in village Mohan Singhwala, Tahsil Zira, District Ferozpur, on the ground that the latter had failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause and to cultivate the land in the manner and to the extent customary in the locality. Their application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector on Jan. 2, 1975. The appellants filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector which was accepted by the Collector on Aug. 22, 1975, holding that the respondent had failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause. The respondent was ordered to be ejected from the land which being the surplus area of the appellants was directed to be allotted to some other eligible tenant by the appropriate authority. The respondent feeling aggrieved by the order of the Collector filed an appeal which was allowed by the Commissioner on Sep. 28, 1977. The order of the Collector dated Aug. 22, 1975, was set aside. The appellants filed a revision against the order of the Commissioner which was dismissed on Aug. 4, 1978. The appellants assailed the orders passed against them in C. W. P. No. 4803 of 1978 which was dismissed vide order dated March 5, 1980 (reported in 1980 Pun LJ 458), against which the present letters patent appeal is directed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the respondent was resettled on the surplus land of the appellants in 1969 under the provisions of the Punjab Act. The respondent accepted the appellants as his landlords. The respondent was a tenant under the appellants when the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, (hereafter the Act) came into force. The surplus land of the appellants allotted to the respondent stood utilised when the Act came into force. This area did not vest in the State Government under S.8 of the Act. The Scheme framed under S.11(2) of the Act could be made only in relation to the land vested in the State. In view of the fact that the area in dispute did not vest in the State, it could not be covered by the Punjab Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973, (hereafter the Scheme), with the result that irrespective of the provision contained in para 13 of the Scheme the respondent continued to be a tenant under the appellants liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent under the Punjab Act. The contention is without merit.

(3.) The relevant part of S.8 of the Act reads: