HARI SINGH Vs. AMRIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 4.2.1999 passed by the Commissioner and order dated 29.11.1995 passed by the Collector respectively.

(2.) FACTS in brief of this case are that land measuring 8 Kanal comprising Rect. No. 11/19 of Khewat No. 18 min Khatauni No. 42 situated in revenue estate of Pabsara, Tehsil and District Sonepat was on rent of Rs. 25/- with Amrit the respondent as tenant. Appellants Hari Singh and Hukam Singh filed an application in form-L under rule-22 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 read with section 14-A(1), in the court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sonepat seeking ejectment of the tenant-respondent on the plea that he had failed to pay the rent for the year 1992-93 without sufficient cause. Assistant Collector, 1st Grade after hearing the parties accepted the application and ordered ejectment of the respondent. Against this order an appeal was moved in the court of Collector who vide his order dated 29.11.1995, reversed the findings of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. Aggrieved by this order a revision petition was preferred in the court of Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, who vide his order dated 4.2.1999 held that originally five persons were the owners of the land in dispute, Surender Nath one of the owners used to take rent up to the year 1990. Thereafter none of them came to obtain the rent and respondent filed an application on 18.1.1990 under section 14-A(iii) of the Act for permission to deposit the rent. During pendency of the application Dinesh and Mahender Nath became owners of the disputed land and respondent had to make another application for permission to implead both of them which the Assistant Collector 1st Grade allowed vide order dated 9.9.1993. The tenant-respondent further contended that if he had any knowledge of Hari Singh having become owner of the land he would have definitely filed the said application against him. Having come to know he filed application against Hari Singh, who did not appear in the court and was consequently proceeded ex-parte. Application of the respondent-tenant was admitted vide order dated 24.12.1993 and he deposited the rent on the same day. In view of the this there was no intention of the tenant-respondent to withhold the rent.