BANT SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners' battle against ejectment from the land in dispute having failed before the revenue officers they have approached this Court through the present writ petition. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) SURJAN Singh was cultivating the land of one Smt. Nihal Kaur as a tenant. He died in 1963. The petitioners are his successors. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 purchased land measuring 31 Bighas 13 Biswas which was under cultivation of the petitioners from Smt. Nihal Kaur in the year 1976. The said respondents instituted three cases in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Khanna. The first case was a suit for the recovery of rent for the period from Rabi 1976 to Kharif 1978. The second case was an application under Section 7A of the Pepsu Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 for the ejectment of Bant Singh etc., the petitioners. The third case was an application under S.7 - These cases were heard together. Vide order dated December 29,1981 the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Khanna decreed the rent suit and ordered the ejectment of Bant Singh etc. from the land in dispute. They filed three appeals against this order. Vide order dated April 27,1982, the appeal against the decree in the rent suit was dismissed. However, with regard to the other two appeals, it was ordered that the petitioners could not be ejected till the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the order of the Collector, viz. December 29, 1981. The orders of the Collector were challenged before the commissioner by filing three revision petitions. These were dismissed on March 13, 1994. Bant Singh etc. then approached the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) through three separate revision petitions. Vide order dated September 30, 1986, the Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision petition against the decree in the rent suit. The petitions against the order of ejectment were, however, accepted and the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector "for rendering a finding on the relationship between the parties." Thus the second round of litigation commenced. On remand, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade again considered the matter. Vide his order dated August 12, 1987, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.4 with the writ petition, he held that the "relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties." He, thus, ordered that Bant Singh etc. "be ejected from the land in dispute after the expiry of six months from the date of order, in case the latter do not pay the rent to the applicants by that date." He further held that the petitioners had not averred that they were "eligible to the allotment of surplus land to the extent of 5 standard acres individually or jointly. In the absence of any such evidence it can be implied that they are not eligible for it." Bant Singh etc. filed an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed vide his order dated August 1, 1988. The order was upheld by the Commissioner vide his order dated December 22, 1993. Copies of these orders are at Annexures p. 2 and p. 3. The petitioners then filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab. Vide order dated October 25, 1994, the learned Financial Commissioner dismissed it. A copy of this order has been appended as Annexure p.1 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the various revenue authorities, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition. The orders at Annexures p. 1 to p.4 have been challenged primarily on the ground that the revenue courts could not determine the relationship between the parties and that the petitioners cannot be evicted from the land until alternative land measuring 5 standard acres was allotted to each one of them. It has also been claimed that the petitioners have become owners by adverse possession and that they are not liable to be evicted in view of the provisions of Section 7 -A of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955.

(3.) THE petitioners have filed a replication, in which besides reiterating the claim made in the writ petition, it has been averred that the impugned orders have been passed without determining the amount of rent which was due from the petitioners. Certain other additional grounds have also been raised.