RAM CHAND Vs. TANSUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Commissioner Hisar Division vide order dated 27.4.95, has referred this matter relating to occupancy rights, to this Court, for setting aside the orders of the A.C. Ist and Collector dated 6.1.94 and 6.7.94 respectively, vide which occupancy rights were granted to respondent Tansukh.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on the basis of being old tenant from 1944-45, respondent Tansukh was granted occupancy rights by the A.C. I through order dated 6.1.94. The order of the A.C. I also mentioned that the respondent-tenant has never paid any batai and has only paid land revenue for the land. An appeal against the above order was rejected by the Collector on 6.7.94. In revision filed before the Commissioner, the Commissioner expressed the view that though the condition of intention not to evict and cultivation of more than 30 years are proved in favour of the respondent but the nominality of rent has not been proved. Batai tehai as recorded in the revenue records is the maximum rent payable and therefore the same cannot be considered nominal. On the above ground the Commissioner has recommended that the orders of the lower Courts should be set aside.

(3.) EVEN though the entry of batai tehai is seen in the revenue record right from 1944-45 it does not appear to be truthful on considering the fact that the land was barani. It has also come out in evidence that batai tehai in actual fact has never been paid nor claimed. It is possible that the tenant may never have known about the batai tehai entry. The respondent-tenants could have staked a claim for occupancy rights much earlier, but took up this case only in 1991 after the change in ownership of land. The fact that they did not make any effort to get occupancy rights before the 1991 also indicates that the earlier owners always considered them to be occupancy tenants. Considering the total facts of the case, especially the long tenure of the respondent-tenants, I feel that respondents should not be denied occupancy rights just on the basis of the entry of batai tehai in the record, which considering other evidence and the total facts of the case, appears to be untrue. I therefore agree with the view taken by the A.C. I and the Collector in this case and dismiss this revision petition. Recommendation decline. Petition dismissed.