NAND KISHORE Vs. LALMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Nand Kishore has filed this revision petition against the order dated 11.1.2002, 7.1.1997 and 29.3.1996 passed by the Commissioner Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, District Collector, Mohindergarh and SDO (C)-cum-prescribed authority, Narnaul respectively.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case that the respondents Lalman etc. filed an application on 24.5.1993 under Section 22 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Pepsu Act") before the prescribed authority, Narnaul for acquisition of proprietary rights of the land measuring 13 bighas and 18 biswas, in their tenancy on the ground that they come within the definition of tenants and are not ejectable under Section 7-A(1) and 7-A(2) of the said Act. The prescribed authority vide his order dated 29.3.1996 while deciding the matter, held that the applicants Lalman etc. were direct tenants of the present petitioner Nand Kishore since 1962 B.K. and were not ejectable and also eligible for proprietary rights on the land measuring 11 bighas 12 biswas. Aggrieved with this order, Nand Kishore went in appeal before the District Collector who, vide his order dated 7.1.1997 dismissed the same. Against this order of the District Collector, Nand Kishore filed a revision petition in the Court of the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.1.2002 and hence, this revision petition before this Court.

(3.) THE ld. counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents were sub- tenants under Girdhari Lal and were not tenants as defined in Section 20 of the Pepsu Act and thus, were not entitled to purchase the tenancy area. He further contended that the petitioner himself was not a big landlord and the land in question was a part of his reserved area meant for his personal cultivation and was well within his permissible limits. His further pleading was that the respondents were not in continuous possession of the land as tenants for the statutory period of twelve years prior to coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling of Lands Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Haryana Act") and were not entitled to seek proprietary rights under Section 22 of the Pepsu Act. Advancing his arguments further, the ld. counsel said that the application for purchase was submitted by the respondents after the commencement of the Haryana Act and therefore, all the impugned orders passed by the lower Courts were not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserved to be set aside. To substantiate his contentions, the ld. counsel relied upon the judgments reported in 1967 PLJ 31, 1976 PLJ Page 38, 1970 PLJ Page 202 (SC) and 1985 PLJ Page 6.