AMAR SINGH Vs. F.C. HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 5 and 6, the landowners, moved an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hisar, under Sections 9(1)(ii) and 14A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act', seeking eviction of the petitioners, who were the tenants on land measuring 144 kanals 8 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of Saat Road, Hisar. It was alleged that the petitioners, who were Gair Mumkin tenants on 1/3rd Batai, neither made the payment nor gave the share of Batai inspite of demand made by the landowners several times, for the crops from Rabi, 1987 to Rabi, 1992. As per the landowners, a sum of Rs. 96,221.86 was due towards the petitioners as rent/Batai. It was further pleaded that since the tenants have defaulted in making payment of rent/Batai, they be ejected as per the provisions of Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act. The Assistant Collector vide his order dated 2.2.1993 ordered ejectment of the petitioners on the ground that the tenants had not tendered the rent/Batai which was due from them. The Assistant Collector while passing order of ejectment, ignored the proviso to Section 14-A(i) of the Act which was incorporated by amending Act No. 5 of 1991.

(2.) THE petitioners challenged the order of Assistant Collector before the Collector. The learned Collector accepted the appeal mainly on the (ground) that it was the legal duty of the Assistant Collector to inform the tenants, after calculating the arrears of rent and interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the arrears together with the costs, if any, so that the amount could be paid by the tenants either on the first date of hearing or within 15 days from the date of such hearing. The matter was remanded back to the Assistant Collector with the direction that the Assistant Collector should calculate arrears of amount and the interest accrued thereon and would provide an opportunity to the tenants to make the payment within specified period. In case the calculated amount was not paid by the tenants within the prescribed period, then the ejectment order was to become operative with immediate effect. Thereafter the tenants admittedly tendered the rent for different crops before the Assistant Collector and made statements Annexures P/3 to P/8.

(3.) AGGRIEVED , petitioners have challenged the orders Annexures P/10 and P/12 passed by the Financial Commissioner being violative of statutory provisions of the Act. The proviso to Section 14-A(i) having been added in the Statute with effect from 22.4.1991 was fully applicable to the facts of the present case. It is also stated that the tenants had tendered the rent, which the landowners accepted and made statements Annexures P/3 to P/8 before the Assistant Collector. Thus it being valid tender, they were not liable to be ejected. The Financial Commissioner being the revisional authority, committed a grave mistake and illegality by reversing the order of the Commissioner and Collector. It is further pleaded that the land in question has been acquired and in a reference made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the tenants have been ordered to be paid compensation to the extent of 3/4th share by the learned District Judge, Hisar. Therefore, the sole aim of filing the ejectment application by the landowners was to deprive the tenants of the share in the compensation amount.