Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh & Others vs Financial Commissioner (Appeal-I) on 25 July, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No.1407 of 2009 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: July 25, 2012
Ranjit Singh & others
...Petitioners
Versus
Financial Commissioner (Appeal-I), Punjab, Chandigarh &
others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Sanjeev Manrai, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.B.B.S.Teji, Addl.A.G.Punjab,
for the State.
Mr.Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate,
for respondent No.5.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
One Buta Singh became a displaced person after partition of the country. He took land in question on rent from respondent No.5-Punjab Wakf Board and accordingly had been paying lease money regularly. It is alleged that Wakf Board suddenly refused to take lease money and whereupon Buta Singh started paying the lease money through money order.
On 13.11.1990, respondent No.5-Wakf Board issued Civil Writ Petition No.1407 of 2009 :2: notice under Section 45(1) of the Punjab Tenancy Act for ejectment of Buta Singh. Reference is made to the proviso, which says that Revenue Officer shall not make the order until he is satisfied that the notice was duly served on the tenant. Instead of serving Buta Singh, the notice was served on Nand Singh without explanation. Nand Singh is father of Buta Singh, who is stated to have died before the partition. It is claimed that Buta Singh had no knowledge of notice of ejectment, which was ultimately filed by respondent No.5. On coming to know that Buta Singh had appeared before Assistant Collector Ist Grade, he pleaded that no ejectment notice has been served upon him. The Collector has also conceded that notice was not served on Buta Singh but was served on Nand Singh. It means that no proper service was effected. Despite that, the Commissioner did not consider these legal issues and dismissed the plea by passing a non- speaking order. Financial Commissioner also did not appreciate this fact and accordingly the petitioner has approached this court.
In response to notice of motion, reply has been filed. It is stated that the eviction proceedings were initiated against Buta Singh. This order of eviction was passed on 2.6.1992, which was in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, a preliminary objection is raised in regard to maintainability of the writ petition to decide this disputed question of fact. It is also pointed out that Buta Singh was the original tenant, who died and his plea that he suffered a decree in favour of his son concerning Wakf Board's property would mean nothing as he could not have transferred this property on the name of his son. Civil Writ Petition No.1407 of 2009 :3:
It will not be appropriate for this court to go into the merits of the controversy. Legal issue raised in this petition is whether Buta Singh was properly served with notice as per the requirement of law for the ejectment sought by the Wakf Board. The plea as raised by the petitioner has not been met in appropriate manner. It is, therefore, considered appropriate to remand this case back to the Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1), who shall re-consider this case simply to see whether the petitioner was properly served with notice of ejectment or not. If the Financial Commissioner finds that the petitioner had been properly served with notice as per requirement of law, he would not consider the case on merits afresh. If on the other hand, he comes to the conclusion that the impugned orders were passed against the petitioner without effecting proper service, he would be at liberty to pass any appropriate order in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity to the petitioner.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 27.8.2012. Financial Commissioner is requested to deal with this case with a speed as the matter is pending since long.
July 25, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE