BRIJ MOHAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 6 standard acres of land from the evacuee pool allotted to the petitioner on quasi-permanent basis on November 28, 1949, in lieu of 8 acres of freehold Chahi land owned by him in Gujranwala (now in West Pakistan) since 1930 and left behind by him on the partition of the country, included the disputed 17 Kanals and 2 Marlas of land with occupancy rights in village Jadla, tehsil Nawanshahr, district Jullundur. The said piece of land, of which the original occupancy tenants were evacuees, was owned by respondents 4 to 6, to whom I will refer in this judgment as the contesting respondents. The petitioner was in Government service when he was selected by the State Government in 1954 for the award of Gandhi Memorial Scholarship for higher studies and training in France. In pursuance of the said selection, the petitioner left India for France on September 13, 1954, and returned to this country only on October 10, 1957. The petitioner claims that he had got no recognised agent or authorised person to represent him in this country during his absence overseas. It cannot be denied that his address could easily have been secured from the Punjab Government, Industries Department, wherein he was employed and from which department he had gone to France for further studies. After the death of the petitioner's mother, his father had remarried. This fact is being mentioned as the case of the respondents is that the petitioner's father had watched the interest of the petitioner at least at some stages during his absence from the country.

(2.) During the petitioner's absence from India, an application under section 14-A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, hereinafter called the Act, for the realisation of some amount alleged to be due from the petitioner as rent of the disputed piece of land was filed by the contesting respondents before the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Nawanshahr. On the process issued to the petitioner, it was reported that he had gone to France. Without trying to enquire about the petitioner's address in France and without directing the contesting respondents to attempt service on him or to furnish his correct address, the Assistant Collector proceeded with the case and passed an ex parte order on July 13, 1957, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 61/4/3 "as provided in the statement of average yield" within one month or be ejected. It is nobody's case that the abovesaid order was intimated to the petitioner. On February 5, 1958 (this date is taken from paragraph 8 of the written statement of the contesting respondents) the petitioner's father (Gurbakhsh Singh) filed an application before the Assistant Collector to the effect that he had been out of station, and that he (Gurbakhsh Singh) was prepared to deposit the amount of rent which had been found due from the petitioner. This was, admittedly, not permitted as the time allowed by the original ex parte order of the Assistant Collector for making the deposit had since, expired. According to the petitioner, the said application had been made by Gurbakhsh Singh on September 5, 1957. On the record of the case shown to me, the only application available is of 5th February, 1958 and from the contents of the same it does not appear that any earlier application had also been made. The result of this situation was that on February 8, 1958, another ex parte order (Annexure 'F') was passed by the Assistant Collector whereunder warrants of possession were issued against the petitioner in respect of the above-said land. This time, again, no notice of the proceedings was served personally on the petitioner before the order was passed. It is significant to note that before the order for issue of warrants was passed, the petitioner had already returned to India in October 1957 and he was posted in the Industries Department at Ambala. In spite of this, it is stated that service of the notice of proceedings fixed for February 8, 1958, was effected on the petitioner by beat of drum in his village on January 29, 1958. Having come to know of the ex parte proceedings and orders, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the ejectment before the Sub-Divisional Officer, who was exercising powers of Collector under the Act at Nawanshahr. By his order dated September 5, 1958 (Annexure 'E') the Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the petitioner's appeal and set aside the order of ejectment on the solitary finding to the effect that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the contesting respondents and the petitioner, and that, therefore, the Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to pass the order under appeal. The contesting respondents appealed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Commissioner, Jullundur Division. The appeal was heard by Additional Commissioner who by his judgment dated April 28, 1961 (Annexure 'D') accepted the contention of the contesting respondents to the effect that the petitioner could at best be deemed to have been vested with the rights of occupancy tenants which rights alone were evacuee property and that, therefore, relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. As a result, the order of the Assistant Collector directing ejectment of the petitioner was restored.

(3.) The revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Additional Commissioner was disposed of by the judgment and order of the Financial Commissioner dated September 7, 1961 (Annexure 'B'). Two contentions appear to have been pressed before the Financial Commissioner on behalf of the petitioner, Brij Mohan Singh. The first contention about there being no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was rejected by the revisional authority. The second submission pressed on behalf of the petitioner was disposed of in the aforesaid order of the Financial Commissioner in the following words :-