Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhagwan Singh Son Of Wadhawa Singh vs The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 3 January, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.6680 of 1987 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.01.2012
Bhagwan Singh son of Wadhawa Singh, resident of Village Kaila,
Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepore.
....Petitioner
versus
The Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab at Chandigarh, and
others.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Ramandeep Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Vikas Bahl,
Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S.Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for
respondents 1 to 4.
None for the respondent No.5.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. The writ petitioner is the landlord, who filed an application for ejectment under Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act of 1953 (for short, 'the 1953 Act'). The petitioner's contention was that he was a small landowner and he was entitled to eject the tenant from his own occupation. The tenant took up several defences including the subsistence of Civil Writ Petition No.6680 of 1987 (O&M) -2- landlord-tenant relationship and also contended that the petitioner was not a 'small landowner' to be entitled to apply for ejectment under Section 9. The landlord's contention was upheld by the Assistant Collector, Collector and Commissioner being the authorities constituted under the Act. In a further revision filed before the Financial Commissioner, he held that the landlord had established the jural relationship of tenancy and even a technical objection taken by the tenant that the verification had not been properly done, was not acceptable but he found that the landlord had not given the details of holding of other members of the family and he had, therefore, directed a fresh adjudication to be done before the Assistant Collector.
2. The learned counsel would contend that the jamabandis that had been filed merely showed the nature of property as banjar qadim and it was not "land" falling within the definition of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act read with the Punjab Tenancy Act of 1887. An agricultural land which remained uncultivable, according to the counsel, would not qualify for being treated as land for computation of holding. In any event, the total holding that was brought through document filed by the respondent was to the extent of 60 kanals 2 marlas which was less than the "permissible area" as defined under the 1953 Act and he was, therefore, a 'small landowner' within the definition of Section 2(2). The counsel would also point out that the impugned order was erroneous in so far as it Civil Writ Petition No.6680 of 1987 (O&M) -3- held that the impugned order had not given the details of the family holdings since a petition under Section 9 was required to be filed in Form K-1 as per the rules and the said form nowhere stipulated the disclosure of any details of holding of the other members of the family.
3. As regards the weighty contentions raised by the petitioner pointing out to the fallibilities of the order of the Financial Commissioner, there is no refutal by the private respondent. I find that the impugned order is not tenable and bound to be set aside.
4. The impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to obtain eviction in accordance with law under the provisions of the Act.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 03.01.2012 sanjeev