JUGTI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents No. 5 to 11 sought ejectment of Jugti petitioner from Khasra Nos. 6060/3950 to 3952, measuring 5 Biswas 7 Biswas Pucca situated at village Mokhra Kheri Roz, Tehsil and District Rohtak, under section 9(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Punjab Law'') on 24th August, 1973. The Assistant Collector vide order dated 16th February, 1976 ordered ejectment of the petitioner. His order was sustained in appeal by Collector vide his order dated 25th May, 1976 Annexure P-2. The Commissioner vide his order dated 28th October, 1976, Annexure P-3, recommended the revision of the petitioner-tenant for acceptance inter alia on the ground that after coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Land Ceiling Act''), it is not necessary either that the reserved area of a big landowner under the Punjab law would remain as reserved area under the Land Ceiling Act or a small landowner would remain so under the Land Ceiling Act. The Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 3rd October, 1978, Annexure P-4, declined the recommendation and dismissed the revision. Hence the present petition at the instance of the tenant-petitioner.

(2.) The point that has been primarily canvassed on behalf of the petitioner is that in view of the provisions of Section 33 of the Ceiling Act, which is in the following terms :-

(3.) Apparently, proceedings for the ejectment of the tenant under the provisions of the Punjab law or Pepsu law could not continue if the same were held to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. For instance, if a tenant is sought to be ejected on the ground that the landowner was a small landowner and before the proceedings concluded, the Land Ceiling Act had become operative, which provides a lower limit of permissible area. (The Punjab law had fixed 30 standard acres as permissible limit, the Land Ceiling Act has brought down the said permissible limit to 7 hectares) the result would be that a person who was earlier a small landowner would become a big landowner and the ground that was available for ejectment under Punjab law or Pepsu law would be lost under the Land Ceiling Act. Similarly, if the landowner was seeking ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the tenant was on the area which had been reserved for the landowner for his cultivation, the position of permissible area under the Land Ceiling Act could undergo a change and the landlord who could get under Punjab law 30 standard acres as this permissible area would now get only 7 hectares with the result that more area with him would become surplus and it may well be that the landowner may select some other area as his permissible area under the Act instead of one which is with the tenant. The Land Ceiling Act, as would be seen, had decisive impact on the given proceedings and its continuation after the operation of the Land Ceiling Act was inconsistent with the provisions of the Ceiling Act. A learned Single Judge in the context of Pepsu law expressed the same view in Smt. Jindo v. State of Punjab, 1980 PunLJ 441, in the following words, with which I fully concur :