SHARWAN KUMAR Vs. ADDL FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Sharwan Kumar has called in question the order dated 10th May, 1972 Annexure-PC) passed by the Additional Financial Commissioner. H. P., whereby his application for stay has been dismissed without giving a hearing to the petitioner.

(2.) It is stated that the petitioner and the respondents 7 and 8 were the owners of certain Khasra numbers comprising an area of 21 Bighas, 22 Biswas situate in village Baroa. Tehsil Ghumarwin. District Bilaspur. One Sant Ram father of respondents 2 to 6 was recorded as a tenant and claimed to be in possession as such. Sometime before 31st May, 1961. the said Sant Ram filed an application under Section 62 of the H. P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act. before the Assistant Collector alleging that he was illegally and forcibly evicted by the land-owners and therefore, he should be restored into possession of the aforesaid land. This application was accepted by the learned Assistant Collector on 31st May, 1961 and an order restoring possession was granted in favour of Sant Ram and. in addition, a fine of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner and the respondents 7 and 8. Thereafter the matter was agitated by the petitioner before the Collector Who dismissed the appeal preferred before him on 21st September. 1967. Subsequently two revisions, one after the other, were fled before the Revenue Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner and the said two revisions were also dismissed on 2nd December. 1967 and 17th August, 1968 respectively In the meantime Sant Ram had died and the respondents 2 to 6 were made his legal representatives. It was alleged by the petitioner that respondents 4 to 6 relinquished their tenancy rights in favour of the petitioner and the respondent No. 7.

(3.) During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the village of Baroa came under consolidation scheme and a re-partition took place, with the result that the petitioner and respondents 7 and 8 were granted some other land in lieu of the disputed Khasra numbers. However, the contention of the respondents has been that actual possession of the same remained with the petitioner and the respondents 7 and 8. On 13th December. 1967 the respondents 2 and 3 filed execution petition before the Assistant Collector and wanted the Court to assist them in recovering possession of land from the petitioner and the respondents 7 and 8. In this execution petition, objections were filed by the petitioner and the respondents 7 and 8, but these objections were partly dismissed on 18th March, 1969. The Assistant Collector granted some relief in respect of the relinquished tenancy rights, as according to him, the tenancy rights had merged with the landowners in respect of that specific portion comprising the share respondents 4 to 6. The decree-holders preferred an appeal before the Collector who accepted the appeal to the extent that he held that no merger had taken place and the tenancy rights could not be splitted up. The appeal filed by the judgment-debtors was. however. dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner and respondents 7 and 8 came in appeal before the Commissioner and that appeal too was dismissed on 24th August, 1971. Final they filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner which is at present pending decision before the Additional Fihancial Commissioner.