MADAN LAL Vs. LACHHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by LRs. of Shri Jhatu and others under section 81 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1977, (hereinafter called the Act). During the pendency of the revision petition some petitioners and respondents also expired and their LRs. were brought on record. A member of them were proceeded ex -parte.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly staled are that a suit for grant of occupancy rights under section 8 of the Act was instituted by Shri Lachho Ram and others, who are respondents in the revision petition, in the court of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Hamirpur in respect of land comprised in Khata No. 1 min, Khewat No. 37 nun, Khasra Na 432, measuring 43 Kanals 1 Maria, situated in Tike Wara, Tappa Garli, as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1962 -63. The suit filed by the present respondents was turned down by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, on 22 -6 -1968. Aggrieved by this order, the present respondents filed an appeal before the Collector, Kangra District (at that time Hamirpur was a part of Kangra District), who after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondents had been brought on this land to cultivate the land by the owners as early as 1 06 -07. As per settlement record of the year 1910 -11, the respondents were shown to be in possession of Khasra No. 434 measuring 43 Kanals and 1 Maria. The learned District Collector had also held that the area measuring 10 Kanals 13 Marlas had been broken and made culturable by the predecessors -in -interest of the respondents and they had some gair mumkin abadi on an area of 15 Marlas. Considering the over all position of the record, the learned District Collector vide his order dated 5 -2 -1969 allowed the occupancy rights in respect of the land, in dispute, to the respondents. Feeling dis -satisfied with the order of the learned District Collector, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Kangra Division, who dismissed the same vide his order dated 23 11 -1985. Now they have come in revision before us against the orders of the District Collector and Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division.

(3.) We have gone through the record of the case very carefully and have also beard the arguments advanced by Shri Bhupinder Gupta, Advocate, Counsel for the petitioners and Shri J. R Thakur, Advocate, Counsel for the respondents Tbe learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the learned District Collector had no jurisdiction on 5 -2 -l%9 to decide the appeal of the respondents and grant decree in their favour when the respondents on 25 -4 1 68 stood physically ejected from tbe land, on which date relation of the landlord and the tenant came to an end. He also stated that the learned District Collector committed grave procedural irregularity inasmuch as that the petitioner Nos. 7, li, 14 and 18, who were respondents before him, were admittedly minors and were not duly represented. The learned Counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioners, who were minors at the time of appeal before the District Collector, had been duly represented by the guardian *ad litem9 appointed by the court to defend their case. Thus it cannot be said that the decree passed by the learned District Collector, Kangra at Dharamshala, suffers from any procedural irregularity. The learned Counsel for the respondents also argued that the respondents had been brought on this land by the landowners from different villages to cultivate the land but they had been settled there as is evident from the record and they had ˜abadi over 15 Marlas of the land The order dated 5 -2 -1969 of the learned District Collector, is well reasoned and does not suffer from any illegality. It becomes obvious from the perusal of the record that the area measuring about 10 Kanals 13 Marlas had been broken by the predecessors -in -interest of the respondents For which, they must have incurred some expenditure. It is a matter of common sense thai no tenant would incur any expenditure unless he has some sort of assurance that he would not be ejected from the land, in dispute We agree with the observations made by the learned District Collector that there was on implied agreement on the part of the landlord not to eject the tenants without sufficient cause. The findings of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Hamirpur, had been turned down by the learned District Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra. The plea taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that relationship of landlord and tenants has ceased since the respondents had been ejected, is not tenable for the reason that the ejectment had taken place when the proceedings were going on in the courts. In view of the concurrent findings of the learned District Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division, we find no reason to interfere with their orders. As such, the revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. To be communicated. Revision dismissed -