PHUL CHAND Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (RVENUE) PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a displaced person and a small landowner, was allotted 25 Standard Acres 13-3/4 units of land in the revenue estate of Narnaul, District Mohindergarh in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan. Since the petitioner wanted to cultivate the land himself, he instituted proceedings before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul for the ejectment of his tenants. The Assistant Collector passed decrees in favour of the petitioner on 19th June 1961. Copy of one of the decrees passed by the Assistant Collector is attached with the petition as Annexure 'A'. In the year 1961, six tenants of the petitioner were declared eligible tenants under the Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme on the application of the petitioner. The petitioner made repeated efforts for settlement of his tenants on the surplus area, but he did not succeed. Again, on Ist July, 1966 the petitioner applied to the Collector, Narnaul to settle his tenants on the surplus area and make available the land to the petitioner. In reply to this application, General Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner. Mohindergarh District at Narnaul vide Memo No. 238 (Agrarian)-65/566 dated 5/6th July, 1966 intimated that no action could be taken on his application for the present in view of the stay order communicated by the Additional Secretary, Revenue, Punjab vide his endorsement No. 3867-ARI(II)-65/2104 dated the 30th April, 1965 and that the allotment of surplus area would be made on vacation of the said stay order. Copy of this Memo is attached with the writ petition as Annexure 'C'. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Shri R.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab has no authority in law to stay the ejectment of the tenants for whose ejectment a valid decree or order has been passed by a competent Court especially when there was no judicial proceeding against that decree or order pending before him. It is then urged that by this blanket general stay order the petitioner has been adversely affected and although the decree was passed in the year 1961 yet the petitioner is deprived of his lawful right over the land. The respondents have not filed any return in spite of service. No one has appeared on their behalf either. I find merit in what the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted. The Financial Commissioner has no authority in law to issue such a Memo staying ejectment of the tenants. The Financial Commissioner and the other Revenue authorities are to act under the specific provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 and the rules made thereunder. In the absence of any such provision, the Financial Commissioner cannot issue any such circular to the Revenue authorities for staying the ejectment of the tenants, especially when a valid lawful decree has been passed by the Assistant Collector in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narfnaul is directed to perform his legal duty under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 and the Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1960. The blanket stay order issued by the Financial Commissioner has no legal force in this particular case. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.