HET RAM Vs. BADLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . - This revision petition has been filed under Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 for setting aside the order/decree dated 3.11.89 passed by the Commissioner Hisar Division who confirmed the order/decree dated 23.5.87 passed by the Collector Bhiwani wherein the Collector had set aside the judgment/decreed dated 31.12.86 passed by the Assistant Collector-Ist Grade Siwani in a case relating to grant of "O" rights.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent Badlu moved an application dated 15.7.85 before the Assistant Collector-Ist Grade Siwani for grant of "O" rights in respect of tenancy land under dispute measuring 63 Kanal 12 Marla comprising in Khewat No. 281/54 min, Khatauni No. 640 Khasra No. 166/1(8-0), 2(8-0), 3(8-0), 4(6-0), 5/1(2-0), 5/2(4-16), 6/1(2-0), 7(7-18), 8/1(4-13), 8/2(2-0), 9(6-0), 13/1 (2-4) and 14/1(2-1), its old Khasra No. was 122 (62 Bighas 15 Biswas) situated in village Behal, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani in view of Jamabandi 1980-81, under Sections 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The Assistant Collector-Ist Grade vide his order dated 31.12.9\86 dismissed the application finding that the respondent Badlu could not prove his cultivation of the land under dispute since more than 30 years. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent Badlu filed an appeal before the Collector Bhiwani who vide his order dated 23.5.1987 finding the respondent to be a tenant since more than 30 years (as any change of ownership does not affect the rights of the tenants), accepted the appeal and granted "O" rights to the respondents in respect of the land in dispute. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner-landlord Het Ram filed an appeal before the Commissioner Hisar Division who vide his order dated 3.11.89 finding that the disputes of co- sharers with one another do not affect the rights of tenants and finding the respondent having completed full tenure of 30 years cultivation and having been recorded as occupancy tenant paying nominal rent, dismissed the appeal holding that the respondent has rightly been granted occupancy rights by the Collector. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector and the Commissioner, the petitioner Het Ram has now come up in revision here.