MOOLA Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Moola filed a suit under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Hissar, for the acquisition of occupancy rights. The original owners of the land in dispute were Muslim evacuees who after the partition of the country left for Pakistan. This land was allotted to Lorinda Ram, respondent No. 3, to the present writ petition. He had been conferred the proprietary rights in this land in April, 1953. Moola contended that he had cultivating the suit land as a tenant on payment of one-third batai. Lorinda Ram contested these assertions and stated that he had been given vacant possession of the land in dispute by the custodian and that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The objections raised by Lorinda Ram were accepted by the Assistant Collector, who dismissed the suit. Moola filed an appeal to the Collector. Meanwhile Lorinda Ram had secured an order of ejectment against the tender under Section 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act) on 23rd of June, 1967. The Collector accepted the plea of the tenant and came to a conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and as such he remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for decision afresh. The Commissioner on appeal by the landowner confirmed the decision of the Collector. Dissatisfied with these orders, Lorinda Ram filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. He accepted the revision petition and held that the land in dispute being evacuee property came to vest in the Custodian under Section 9(1) of the Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Displaced Persons Act), free from all encumbrances. The rights, if any, of Moola on the land were extinguished because the lease in his favour had not been specifically exempted by an order of the custodian. He also held that after 25th of July, 1949, Moola became a present holder, within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Displaced Persons Act. The Financial Commissioner also held that the provisions of the Displaced Persons Act prevailed over the other statues. He also concluded that there was no conflict between the provisions of the Displaced Persons Act and the provisions of Section 14-A of the Act because the two statutes do not cover the same field. The landowner was a successor of the Custodian and he got the land in the same position as it was with the Custodian. Between the period of 25th July, 1949 and April, 1953, Moola was only a present holder. He was not a tenant or a lessee. So, he accepted the revision petition and set aside the orders of the Collector and dismissed the application of the tenant under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Dissatisfied with this order, Moola, petitioner, has presented this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Mr. H.S. Wasu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner had acquired the rights of occupancy even before the partition. He had filed the application for declaration under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The provisions of the Displaced Persons Act were not applicable to the petitioner. In any case, they do not deal with the rights of occupancy tenants and they do not touch the rights of third parties like the tenants. In support of this contention, he has cited N.S. Gujral v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and another, 1968 70 PunLR 603. In that case the rights of a person who had secured a decree against the evacuees were determined. That decision has no hearing on the facts of the present case. It has not been held therein that a lease of land is not an encumbrance of that property. At this stage, it will be beneficial to reproduce Section 9 of the Displaced Persons Act, which is in the following terms :-

(3.) Mr. Wasu then argued that in fact after the passing of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Property Rights) Act (8 of 1953), which came into force on 15th June, 1952, all rights of the land-owners in the lands on which there were occupancy tenants came to be extinguished and these rights by a legal fiction were deemed to be vested in the occupancy tenants and as such the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act was not competent; that the orders passed by the revenue authorities are without jurisdiction; and that the petitioner should be allowed to approach the civil Court to get his rights and claims adjudicated upon. In support of his pleas he has relied on Dinu v. Nasib Khan and others, 1975 PunLJ 316and Amin Lal v. Financial Commissioner, 1971 PunLJ 619. No doubt these judgments lay down that after the enforcement of Act 8 of 1953, the revenue Courts cannot take cognizance of the suits for declaration that the plaintiffs have come owners of the land in dispute, but that is not the issue in this case. The real issue is whether after the promulgation of the Displaced Persons Act and in view of the provisions of Section 9, the rights of Moola in the land in dispute have been extinguished or not. I have already held that because of Section 9 all the rights of lessees in the evacuee lands came to an end, on 25th July, 1949 and all these lands came to vest in the custodian free from encumbrances. The custodian transferred the land in dispute to the petitioner free from all encumbrances.