MISHRI AND LALMAN Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, Mishri and Lalman, sons of Kurda, residents of village Jharoda, Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak, cultivate as tenants the agricultural land measuring 232 Kanals and 2 Marlas owned by Smt. Ganeshi Devi, respondent No. 5, situate in village Kheri Nangal, Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak. Respondent No. 5 filed an application for the ejectment of the petitioner from the land in question on the ground that she was a small landowner. Accepting the claim of respondent No. 5, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar, vide his order, dated October 31, 1972, ordered the ejectment of the petitioners from the land in question. The petitioner went in appeal against the above order, to the Collector, Rohtak and the same having been dismissed vide his order, dated March 6, 1973, they filed a revision before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, which also met the same fate, vide his order, dated May 5, 1973. Still feeling aggrieved, the petitioners went in further revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, who partly accepted the revision vide his order, dated March 25, 1974, and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, for the determination of compensation for the improvements made by the petitioners by sinking tubewell in the land in question. He however, confirmed the orders of ejectment and allotment of surplus land passed by the three Courts below, that is, by respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

(2.) Throughout the petitioners have taken the stand that they had been continuously cultivating the land in question as tenants for over six years under respondent No. 5 who was a big landowner and therefore, they had moved the revenue Courts for the purchase of the land under their tenancy under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Punjab Law). The application for purchase of the tenancy land was rejected by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar, on October 31, 1972, and their appeal against that order to the Collector, Rohtak, was also dismissed on March 6, 1973. The petitioners then went in revision before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, which also failed and was dismissed on May 5, 1973, and a further revision against the orders of respondent No. 2, dated May 5, 1973, was also rejected by the Financial Commissioner, respondent No. 1 vide his order, dated May 6, 1974.

(3.) Respondent No. 5 had also moved the Revenue Court for the ejectment of the petitioners on Form 'L' the land in dispute for non-payment of Batai, and the ejectment was ordered by respondent No. 4 vide his order, dated October 31, 1972. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid order to the Collector, Rohtak, was dismissed on March 6, 1973. The petitioners then went in revision and the same was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, vide his order, dated May 5, 1973. A further revision to the Financial Commissioner, was also dismissed on March 25, 1974, and the order of ejectment was maintained, but the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar, with a direction that under Section 70 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, he should direct the petitioners to put up their claim for compensation and further that if on a finding given on the point, compensation amount, if any, was not deposited, the petitioners shall not be ejected.