OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 21, 1984, copy Annexure P.4, whereby the orders of the three lower revenue officers, i.e., the Commissioner, the Collector and the Assistant Collector, First Grade, copies, Annexures P.3, P.2 and P.1, respectively were maintained.

(2.) The Respondents, who are the landowners, filed two applications under section 9(1)(vii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, before the Assistant Collector, First Grade. Sonepat, with the request that the petitioners who are the tenants on the land, in dispute, be required to execute the Qabuliatnama under the above-said Act for payment of one-third of produce as the rent for the land. The Assistant Collector, after hearing the parties, found that the rent could be enhanced to either the customary rent in the area or one-third of the produce whichever is less. He further held that customary rent in this estate could not be determined and vide order dated November 23, 1982, ordered that the rent should be paid at the rate of one-third of the produce and Qabuliatnama should be executed accordingly within one month and if the tenants failed to do so, they would be deemed to have been ejected from the land in dispute. Against the said order of the Assistant Collector, the appeal was filed by the tenants. The learned Collector maintained the order of the Assistant Collector. Revision was filed by the tenants before the Commissioner who also maintained the earlier orders. Further revision to the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed and it was observed that since the landowners had asked for one-third of the batai which was the maximum permitted under the law, the demand of the landowners cannot be termed as illegal or unreasonable in the absence of any agreement not to increase the cash rent. Since the value of the produce has gone up, it is quite obvious that the cash rent due to the landowners would also increase proportionately. Under the circumstances of the case, it appeared quite equitable that the tenants be asked to pay one-third share of the produce to the landowners since the cash value of each crop is likely to be different for each crop.

(3.) The learned counsel for the tenants-petitioners submitted that they have been paying rent in cash since long and, therefore, now by executing the qabuliatnama they could not be directed to pay one-third batai. This, according to the learned counsel, was violative of rule 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 which provides for the mode of determination of rent. According to the learned counsel the said rules does not contemplate that the cash rent can be converted into one-third batai. The learned counsel further submitted that no order of ejectment or enhancement could be passed when compensation for improvement for the land had not been paid to the tenants. As regards the second contention, the same was never urged before the learned Financial Commissioner and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be allowed to take this point for the first time in this writ petition.