BHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Jind, dated 22. 12. 1972 as confirmed by the Collector on appeal and by the Additional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide Annexures P-1 to P-4. Challenging the said orders, the petitioners filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE 2nd respondent, who is the land holder, filed an application before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Jind for the eviction of the petitioners from the land in question Under Section 5 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. According to the land holder, the petitioners were inducted as tenants after 1956. They are liable to be evicted from the land. The authorities below held that the petitioners became the tenants of the land in dispute in 1959. As they had completed minimum term of 3 years, they are liabie to be evicted from the land and accordingly, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade by his order dated 22. 12. 1972 ordered the eviction of the petitioners. The said order was confirmed by the Collector on 21. 3. 1975. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Hissar Division by his order dated 20. 1. 1982. The Financial Commissioner also dismissed the further revision.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that Section 8 of the Act does not furnish a ground for eviction. It only protects the right of the tenant said to be in possession of the land for a period of three years if he was inducted as a tenant after 1956. He further contended that Section 8 of the Act shall apply subject to provisions of Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, a tenant can be evicted even during the period of three years if the grounds enumerated in Section 7 are present. He also argued that Section 7-A which was introduced alongwith Section 8 in the main Act furnishes additional grounds for evicting the tenants, but Section 8 was not made subject to the provisions of Section 7-A. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the grounds mentioned in Section 7 of the Act are available to the landlord to evict the tenant during the period of three years while the tenant cannot be evicted during that period of three years on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 7-A of the Act. Thus according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Section 8 of the Act does not furnish a fresh ground for eviction on the basis that the tenant completed three years of tenancy on being inducted as a tenant after 1956. Though this argument appears to be appealing, on a reading of the provisions contained in Sections 7, 7 A and 8 of the Act, but in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court and also of the Supreme Court, I am not able to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners.