LEKH RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , F.C. - This revision petition has been filed by Lekh Ram and Khuba Ram, petitioners under Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 against the order dated 9.2.1995 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar.

(2.) FACTS of the case in brief are that Lekh Ram and Khuba filed a suit in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hisar for acquiring occupancy rights in respect of land measuring 25 kanals 14 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Hisar, District Hisar under Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1987. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide his judgment dated 31.8.1993 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs Lekh Ram and Khuba Ram. Union of India, Haryana State and Tehsildar (Sales) filed an appeal in the Court of Collector, Hisar challenging the order dated 31.8.1993 passed by the Assistant Collector, Hisar. The Collector, Hisar vide his order dated 22.4.1994 accepted the appeal and set aside the order and decree passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, Lekh Ram and Khuba Ram filed an appeal in the Court of Commissioner, Hisar Division who vide his order dated 9.1.1995 dismissed the appeal. Hence the present revision petition.

(3.) THE Deputy District Attorney appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that the orders of the Collector and the Commissioners are well-reasoned orders and occupancy rights cannot be granted to the petitioners. The petitioners have not paid rent since 1987. Hence, they are unauthorised occupants on the suit land and, therefore, no relationship of tenant and landlord exists in this case. Moreover, father of the petitioners, Rupa was in joint cultivation with Budh Ram but he has not been made a party and this case also fails on this ground. Moreover, rent in this case was never nominal since 1937. Even Rs. 100/- rent in 1937 cannot be termed as nominal in any case. He said that earlier the civil Court specifically has come to the conclusion that the petitioners were not occupancy tenants and hence, they could not have filed a fresh suit for occupancy rights. He, therefore, pleaded that the revision petition may be dismissed.