SH MOHINDER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER TAXATION CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Articles. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the short question involved is, as to whether a small landlowner is entitled in law to get possession of his land back from the tenant under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, or he is to be deprived of his land for all times to come because the tenant, instead of inking necessary steps to have the alternative land allotted from the Government, continues to retain the land in question by protracting the proceedings before the various Tribunals and the Courts,

(2.) PETITIONER Mohinder Singh owned 16 Kanals 8 Marlas of land (about 2 Standard Acres) situated in village Sheikh Chak, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar. He entered into an agreement for the lease of the aforesaid land with Saudagar Singh, respondent No. 6, on 4th May, 1972. According to the terms of the agreement (Annexure P. 1), which was in fact a Pattanama for one year only, land was taken on lease for the year Sauni 1972 to Hari 1973. After expiry of the lease perid, the land in question was not vacated by respondent No. 6, bat he got the lease extended for another two years. Even thereafter it was not vacated nor was any lease money paid to the landowner-petitioner. The petitioner had filed a number of suits for the recovery of the lease money which were decreed from time to time. Ultimately he invoked the provisions of S. 9 (i) and (ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and filed an application in Form K-I for ejectment of the tenant (respondent No. 6) from the land in dispute. The application was allowed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Tarn Taran, on 8th August, 1975, and ejectment of the tenant was ordered with a direction, that the tenant should seek his remedy for getting the alternative land allotted to him for his resettlement on some surplus area under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. Against the aforesaid ejectment order dated 8th August, 1975, the respondent filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, and the order of the learned Assistant Collector was reversed on 19th December. 1975, Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Addl. Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur, which too was dismissed on 31st May, 1978. Even the revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab, was dismissed on 11th February, 1979 vide order (Annexure P. 8), but the learned Financial Commissioner, while disposing of the revision petition of Mohinder Singh Petitioner, issued the following direction regarding the ejectment of respondent Saudagar Singh: "in order to avoid any hardship to Mohinder Singh, I further order that Saudagar Singh should be accommodated on some alternative land within two months. " Despite this, the tenant, respondent No. 6, did not make any effort to have the alternative land allotted to him and continued to retain the land in question belonging to the petitioner without paying any rent. The efforts made by the petitioner from time to time did not bear any fruit and the application for restoration of his land by executing the order of the learned Financial Commissioner, Taxation, proved abortive for another two years. Ultimately, it was on 16th December, 1981, that warrant of possession of the land in dispute was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Tarn Taran, after the learned Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that the respondent had shown gross negligence in pursuing the case for alternative allotment and had never bothered to apply for the same. It was thereafter that the respondent-tenant paid the arrears of lease money to the petitioner thereby rendering his suit filed for recovery of the same as infructuous, which was accordingly withdrawn. Still when the petitioner found that physical possession of the land in dispute was not being delivered to him, he filed the present writ petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for delivering possession of the land in dispute to him.

(3.) IN the first instance, the writ petition was dismissed in limine by the Motion Bench on 7th March, 1983, but when the petitioner approached the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1082 of 1987, the Supreme Court passed the following order on 2ist April, 1987:-"after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do feel that the High Court should not have dismissed the writ petition in limine but should have called upon the State Government to file a return justifying the inaction for the last several years. We accordingly grant special leave, set aside the order passed by the High Court and remit the writ petition for rehearing. The High Court shall dispose of the case as early as possible and in any event, not later than four month from today. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs, Sd/- A. P. Sen Sd/- B. C. Ray Judges. " It was thereafter that the writ petition was admitted on 8th October, 1987.