BHAJAN SINGH Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Bhajan Singh, Joginder Singh etc. against Gaurdev Singh etc. of village Gharuan, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar under Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 read with Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act against the order dated 30.4.2001 of Commissioner, Patiala Division and order dated 30.4.1998 of the Assistant Collector vide which ejectment application of the present petitioners/landlord was dismissed on the ground that the respondents/tenants did make efforts to pay the rent to the petitioners who avoided accepting the same. Petitioners seek restoration of the Collector's order dated 26.2.1999 vide which he remanded the case for issue-wise adjudication.

(2.) THE petitioners had filed application under Section 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 for the ejectment of the respondents from land measuring 8 bigha - 8 biswa situated in village Gharuan on the ground that the respondents/tenants had failed to pay the rent regularly without sufficient reasons since May, 1987. They had thus committed a default in payment of rent. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kharar rejected the application vide his order dated 30.4.1998 on the ground that the respondents had verbally and in writing made every effort to pay the rent to the petitioners/landlord. In the appeal, the Collector, Ropar observed that issues were framed before the Assistant Collector but the case was not decided issue-wise. Therefore, there was a lapse in the adjudication. He, therefore, accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector with the direction to decide the case afresh issue-wise after affording opportunity of being heard to both the parties and examining the documentary evidence brought on record.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further I may clarify that the Commissioner is empowered under the Land Revenue Act to review his own order and modifying his finding after hearing the affected party. In this case he reviewed the order after hearing the petitioner. So, there is no legal infirmity. The scope of review as per the Punjab Land Revenue Act is wide and not limited as per the Civil Procedure Code. Perusal of Commissioner's previous order dated 12.10.2000 reveals that the Commissioner had thought that the contention of the respondent regarding the efforts made by him to pay rent was a new ground additionally raised before him and that this deserved a probe. So, he remanded with this impression which was factually wrong because this contention had already been dealt and proved before the Assistant Collector. Therefore, when he discovered this while reconsidering the matter in review, he concluded that there was no need of remand as no material point or issue remained to be verified or explained further in this regard. Hence, he accepted the appeal of the respondents and set aside the Collector's remand order which had earlier endorsed. Thus, the review order which is now impugned has to be examined in the present revision petition on merits rather than on the technical ground of unsustainability on the plea that it was without jurisdiction or justification.