NATHU RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which calls for decision in this case is whether in case of eviction resulting from non -compliance with an order for payment of rent made in an application under Section 14 -A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act), compensation under the Punjab Tenancy Act, for improvement, disturbance, etc., can or cannot be allowed.

(2.) GURDIT Singh and Sohan Singh, Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were tenants of Nathu Ram and Atma Ram Petitioners on the land in question. Since they defaulted in payment of rent for three years from Kharif, 1954 to Rabi, 1957, the Petitioners made an application under Section 14 -A(ii) of the Act on November 21, 1957, for the recovery of the amount due from them. The claim of the Petitioners was allowed by the Assistant Collector, Second Grade, on August 21, 1958, and the tenants were directed to pay Rs. 253.12 within a period of one month. In default of payment, they were liable to be ejected. The appeal of the tenants was dismissed by the Collector, Ferozepore, on January 30, 1959. In pursuance of the said orders, the Petitioners dispossessed the tenants on May 15, 1959. The revision petition of the tenants was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Jullundur Division. Against the order of the Commissioner, the tenants went up to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, and in that forum for the first time they claimed compensation for their eviction. The Financial Commissioner, by his order, dated August 19, 1960 (Annexure 'A'), remanded the case to the Assistant Collector, First Grade, for determination of compensation under Section 14(A)(i) of the Act. In pursuance of the order of remand, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, by his order, dated August 8, 1962, allowed a sum of Rs. 3,144.54 as compensation to the tenants under the various heads, including items for reclamation and leveling and for cost of trees, etc. A copy of the order of the Assistant Collector is Annexure 'B' to the writ petition. The appeal of the Petitioners against the above said award of compensation was dismissed by the order of the Collector, dated December 4, 1962 (Annexure 'C'). The revision petition filed by the Petitioners before the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur, met the same fate on March 21, 1963 (Annexure 'D'). The Petitioners then went up to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The final authority not only did not accept the contention of the Petitioners as to the question of jurisdiction of the authorities to award compensation to the tenants, but further directed that if the amount in question was not paid to the tenants within 15 days from the date of the order, they would be entitled to recover interest at 12 per cent per annum. It was in the above circumstances that the present writ petition was filed on November 26, 1963, for quashing of the above said orders (Annexures A to E) whereby the compensation has been directed to be paid to Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 for their adjustment. None of the Respondents has filed any return to the rule issued in this case. Counsel has appeared for Respondents Nos. 5 and 6. In this situation the statement of facts made in the writ petition has to be assumed to be correct and the case has to be decided on that basis.

(3.) IT is clear from a plain reading of the above said provision that there is a patent distinction between the proceedings envisaged by Clause (i) on the one hand and Clause (ii) of Section 14 -A of the Act on the other, namely.