BALLU Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shibu is a big landowner. Certain areas belonging to him were declared surplus in January, 1961. Mangat Ram, respondent No. 4 had been allotted land measuring 40 Kanals in village Gudha, tehsil and district Karnal, out of the surplus area of Shibu, respondent No. 5, and the petitioners who are sons of Shibu. He was given possession of the land in dispute on 24th May, 1964, and a report of the Kanungo to this effect was also entered. Sometime thereafter, Mangat, respondent No. 4 was forcibly ejected out of this land. It is alleged that the petitioners along with Shibu dispossessed him from the land allotted to him. Mangat made an application to the Collector praying that he should be put in possession of the land allotted to him. Earlier a writ petition was filed by Shibu, land-owner against the declaration of the surplus area, which was dismissed on 17th October 1969. The petitioners filed a suit for injunction in the Civil Court. On the statement made by Mangat, the Civil Court passed a decree that the petitioners will not be dispossessed from the land in dispute without recourse to law. On 27th December, 1974, Mangat had filed an application before the Collector (Agrarian), Karnal, under Section 19-C of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act) wherein he prayed that the possession of the land in dispute which had been forcibly taken from him should be restored to him. This application was allowed on 21st of November, 1975 and orders were passed for the delivery of the possession of Mangat. The petitioners filed an appeal to the Commissioner and the same was dismissed on 14th December, 1976. The revision petition filed by the petitioners to the Financial Commissioner also met the same fate on 3rd of January, 1978. Aggrieved by the orders of the Revenue Authorities, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr. C.B. Goel, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that once the Collector hands over the possession of the land to a tenant under Section 19-C of the Act and the tenant is somehow or the other dispossessed of the land, the Revenue Authorities become functus officio. According to the provisions of Section 19-C, once the Collector puts the tenant in possession of the land, he cannot exercise this power again to put back the tenant in possession. In support of his contention, Mr. Goel has relied on Maman and others v. The Financial Commissioner and others, 1973 PunLJ 138 This authority indeed supports the contention raised by the learned counsel. After a thorough and elaborate analysis of the provisions of Section 19-C of the Act, Tuli, J. (as his lordship then was) has held :

(3.) The orders of the Revenue Authorities are clearly illegal. I, therefore, allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner (Annexures P.1, P.2 and P.3, appended to the petition). There shall be no order as to costs.