KRISHAN CHAND Vs. GAUSHALA COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case in brief are that respondent Gaushala Committee had filed an application for ejectment on Form "L" against Shri Antu, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners for non-payment of rent without sufficient cause before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Jagadhri. The Assistant Collector vide his order dated 30.12.1970 passed ejectment order against Antu. Shri Antu went in appeal before the Collector, Ambala against the order of ejectment which was dismissed by the Collector vide his order dated 11.11.1971. The revision petition against the order of the Collector was also dismissed by Commissioner. Aggrieved by these orders Shri Antu went in revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, who vide his order dated 13.2.1978 accepted the petition, set aside the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner and remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision. The Collector further remanded the case to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagadhri for fresh decision. During the pendency of the appeal and revision, the respondent Gaushala Committee obtained the possession of the land in dispute on the basis of the original ejectment orders passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. After the ejectment orders were set aside by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest Antu applied to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade for restoration of possession of land. This application was accepted by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagadhri and warrant of possession in favour of Shri Antu was issued vide order dated 30.10.1984. Raghbir Saran who had been inducted as a tenant by the respondent-Gaushala Committee after ejectment of Antu, filed an appeal before the Collector Ambala against the order of the Assistant Collector dated 30.10.1984. This appeal was dismissed by the Collector vide his order dated 9.9.85. Revision petition of Shri Raghbir Saran before the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed vide his order dated 6.7.89. The warrant of possession was again issued by the Assistant Collector on 15.12.89 in favour of the petitioners. Shri Raghbir Saran filed another application before the Assistant Collector for giving an opportunity of hearing to him. On this, the Assistant Collector adjourned the restoration of the possession of the respondent till the decision of the main case of ejectment vide his order dated 23.3.1991. The petitioners filed an appeal against this order of the Assistant Collector before the Collector, which was accepted by him vide his order dated 26.12.91. An appeal was filed against the order of the Collector before the Commissioner, who vide his order dated 7.6.1994 dismissed the same. The possession of the land has not been restored to the petitioners so far. In the original case of ejectment, the petitioners moved an application on 8.7.1994 praying that proceedings for their ejectment should be stayed till the possession of the land in dispute is restored to them. The Assistant Collector vide his order dated 21.7.94 ordered that the decision on this application would be taken at the time of arguments in the main case. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector, who treated this case as revision petition and vide his order dated 23.8.94 has made a reference, through Commissioner, Ambala Division recommending that ejectment proceedings should be adjourned till the possession of the land in dispute is restored to the petitioners. The Commissioner, Ambala Division has also concurred with the recommendation of the Collector and has recommended that proceedings of ejectment should be stayed till the possession of the land in dispute is restored to the petitioners.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Assistant Collector has been avoiding to implement the decisions of the Financial Commissioners. The revision petition filed by Antu was accepted by the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 13.2.1978, and the order of ejectment was set aside. In fact the possession of the land should have been restored to the tenant immediately thereafter. However, the matter regarding the restoration of possession of land in dispute went again right upto the Financial Commissioner level, who vide his order dated 6th July, 1989 held that a revenue office under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act has inherent jurisdiction to order restoration of possession. However, the possession has not yet been delivered to the original tenants. On one pretext or the other the possession is not being delivered to the original tenants, but the case of ejectment is being pursued vigorously. He said that question of ejectment of the petitioners does not arise since they are not in possession of the land at all. Hence first possession of the land should be restored to them and then only the case of ejectment should be proceeded with and reference made by the Collector/Commissioner should be accepted.

(3.) I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and have studied the case file. The facts of the case have been narrated at length in para 1 above. The respondent-Gaushala Committee filed an application on form "L" before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagadhri on the ground of non-payment of rent. The Assistant Collector accepted the application vide his order dated 20.12.1970 and ordered the ejectment of Antu, predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners. His appeal to the Collector and revision petition before the Commissioner failed. The tenant Antu then filed revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, who after hearing both the parties vide his order dated 13.2.1978 accepted the revision petition and set aside the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner, and remanded the case to the Collector for a fresh decision. The Collector further remanded the case to the Assistant Collector vide his order dated 10.7.1978. Thus, the order of the Assistant Collector ejecting the tenants was set aside by the Financial Commissioner in February 1978 but before that Antu had been ejected from the land in dispute in compliance of the orders of the Assistant Collector. In pursuance of the order of the Financial Commissioner, Antu filed an application for restoration of possession of the land in dispute and the Assistant Collector issued warrants of possession against Gaushala. Their appeal to the Collector and revision before the Commissioner also failed. The matter went up to the Financial Commissioner level who gave a very clear finding. The main point of contention raised before the Financial Commissioner was whether the restitution of possession is permissible under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code or not. The then Financial Commissioner clearly came to the conclusion that if a Revenue Officer passes the order for delivery of possession, he has got powers to order restoration of possession as well and that a Revenue Officer under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act has inherent jurisdiction to order restoration of possession. With these observations the Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision petition filed by Raghbir Saran against the warrant of possession issued by the Assistant Collector. Seven more years have since passed but the warrant of possession has not yet been executed on one pretext or the other. Now the plea of the respondents is that original case of the ejectment should be decided first and then decision should be taken for restoration of possession to the petitioners, because it would lead to unnecessary litigation. The plea of the petitioners is that when they are not in possession of the land, question of their ejectment does not arise and that Assistant Collector has been avoiding to implement the orders of the Financial Commissioner.