LAWS(P&H)-1968-8-40

MOHAR LAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

Decided On August 05, 1968
Mohar Lal Appellant
V/S
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 4-2-1966, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, by which he allowed the revision petition preferred by Smt. Lachhmi respondent against the order, dated 19-5-1964 of the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Bhiwani, granting the petitioner occupancy rights.

(2.) The facts are not much in dispute. Smt. Lachhmi respondent, daughter of Smt. Nopan, caste Brahman resident of Girwa, Tehsil Bhiwani, District Hissar claimed occupancy rights in regard to land measuring 86 Bighas and 19 Biswas comprising Khasra No. 154 and Khata No. 37/115 situate in village Girwa. This land was originally owned by one, Siria, but later on the ancestors of Smt. Lachhmi were holding the same as tenants and in the revenue record they were shown as occupancy tenants almost since the year 1894-95. Mam Chand, father of Mohar Lal petitioner, was shown as tenant-at-will under the ancestors of Smt. Lachhmi, who were recorded as occupancy tenants. This statement of fact is to be found in the judgment of the Assistant Collector, which has been filed as annexure 'A' with the writ petition. In the State of Punjab, the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (8 of 1953), was deemed to have come into force with effect from 15.6.1952. By virtue of this Act, all rights, titles and interests of the landlord in any land held by an occupancy tenant were extinguished and those rights were deemed to vest in the occupancy tenants free from all encumbrances, if any, created by the landlord, with the result that the occupancy tenants became the owners of the land so held by them. A landlord, of course, whose rights had been extinguished by the operation of this Act, was entitled to obtain compensation, determination of the amount whereof was left to the Collector in the light of certain principles enunciated in the Act. Smt. Lachhmi was granted occupancy rights in respect of the land in dispute on 20-5-1953 and this fact has not been controverted in any of the revenue Courts or in this Court. In view of Smt. Lachhmi having got a declaration of her occupancy rights, she became owner of the land by virtue of the provisions of the said Act. She made an application for ejectment of Mohar Lal petitioner under section 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (10 of 1953) on the ground that she was a small landowner and, therefore, entitled to obtain ejectment of the petitioner. The Assistant Collector, First Grade, Bhiwani, by his order, dated 30-10-1962, held that Mohar Lal was liable to ejectment, but as he was in possession of less than five standard acres of land, he could not be physically ejected till he was accommodated on some surplus area. A true copy of this order is filed as annexure R.1 with the return of Smt. Lachhmi. Mohar Lal did not raise any plea in the application for ejectment that he was the occupancy tenant and could not, therefore, be ejected. He filed a suit in the revenue Court at Bhiwani on 18-2-1963 for a declaration that he was the occupancy tenant. Smt. Lachhmi respondent resisted the suit and on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed -

(3.) Smt. Lachhmi respondent then filed a revision petition which, as already stated, was allowed by the Financial Commissioner who held that the Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to set at naught the decision of 1963 by which Smt. Lachhmi had been granted the occupancy rights. He was also of the view that the evidence before the Assistant Collector in the suit filed by Mohar Lal was not sufficient for granting the occupancy rights, even if the decision of 1953 granting her the occupancy rights was ignored. The Financial Commissioner made a detailed reference to the conduct of the Collector in the matter of hearing of the appeal of Smt. Lachhmi respondent and how the proceedings were unnecessarily prolonged and ultimately disposed of by a brief order which could have been passed without prolonging the proceedings unreasonably. The Financial Commissioner considered the view taken by the Assistant Collector who conferred occupancy rights on a sub-tenant of an occupancy tenant simply because the former was shown to be in continuous possession of the land as absurd. In his opinion, Smt. Lachhmi respondent automatically became the owner of the land as soon as the Punjab Act 8 of 1953 came into force.