Civil Writ Petition No.19370 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.19370 of 2011 Date of Decision:17.10.2011 Ravinder Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Dr.Praveen Hans, Advocate for the petitioners. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that, petitioners Ravinder Kumar and others claimed themselves to be owners and landlords (for brevity “the landlords”) of the agricultural land in dispute, situated in village Ramupura, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani. Masudi son of Lachhman, was stated to be the tenant on it on payment of 1/3rd produce in crop (Batai Tihai). After his death, Om Pal and others contesting respondent-tenants Nos.8 to 11 (for short “the tenants”) became tenants, being his sons. According to the petitioner-landlords, the tenants have sublet the possession of the disputed land to different persons without their (landlords) consent and made constructions thereon, shown in red colour as depicted in the site plan. It was also alleged that the tenants have also not paid the share of the amount of ` 10,695/-, in lieu of 1/3rd share in the produce (Batai Tihai) of the relevant period. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the landlords filed the petition under section 14-A (i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 read with Rule 22 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and relevant Rules”) in prescribed Form L, claiming Civil Writ Petition No.19370 of 2011 -2- their shares in the crop and sought their ejectment in this regard. 2. The contesting respondent-tenants refuted the claim of landlords and filed the reply, in which, it was pleaded that their father Masudi did not cultivate the land in dispute as a tenant (gairmaurusi) on Batai Tihai. The disputed land is not an agricultural land, in which, their houses were constructed 40 years ago. Its nature is Banjar-Kadim. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondent-tenants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the application/Form L and prayed for its dismissal. 3. Agreeing with the contention of landlords, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade observed that the tenants have neither tendered nor deposited the amount of 1/3rd share in the produce after 14 days of the assessment and ordered their ejectment, by virtue of order dated 14.5.2008 (Annexure P8). 4. As the possession was not delivered to the landlords, therefore, they filed C.W.P.No.14700 of 2010, which came to be disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Rajive Bhalla, J.), by means of order dated 18.8.2010 (Annexure P10), wherein, they (landlords) were relegated to the appropriate remedy of revision before the Financial Commissioner under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. 5. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners filed ROR No.980 of 2009- 2010, whereas the tenants filed another ROR No.140 of 2010-2011 under section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tenancy Act”) to set aside the ejectment order (Annexure P8). 6. The Financial Commissioner decided both the revision petitions, through the medium of common impugned order dated 24.1.2011 (Annexure P14), which, in substance, is as under:- “I have gone through the arguments of the counsel for both parties and relevant record of the case. The report dated 22.11.2010 of S.D.M. Bhiwani mentioned that the land in dispute is Gair-mumkin on the spot and not agricultural land. Presently P.W.D. road and residential houses stand Civil Writ Petition No.19370 of 2011 -3- constructed, which are 35-40 years old. The A.C. 1st Grade in its order dated 14.5.2008 has not given its finding whether the land-in-dispute comes under the definition of land as per section 4(1) of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and also whether the land is Gair-mumkin or agriculture land. In view of this, the order dated 14.08.2008 (Sic. 14.5.2008) is set aside and case is remanded to A.C.1st Grade, Bhiwani to adjudicate. Whether the land in question comes under the definition of “Land” as defined in sec.4(1) of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and if yes, whether the revisionist Ompal Singh and others are tenants over the land and liable to be ejected or not.” 7. The petitioner-landlords still did not feel satisfied with the impugned order (Annexure P14) and preferred the instant writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition. 9. Ex facie, the solitary argument of learned counsel that since the relationship of landlord and tenant is duly recorded in the revenue record i.e. jamabandis for the years 2002-03 (Annexure P4) and 2007-08 (Annexure P5), so, the Financial Commissioner committed a mistake in remanding the matter to Assistant Collector 1st Grade for its fresh decision, sans merit. 10. As is evident from the record that, the kind of land in dispute has been described as Banjar-Kadim in the indicated jamabandis. These entries prima facie corroborate the case of tenants that the disputed land is not an agricultural, but is a Banjar-Kadim gairmumkin land. They have already constructed their residential houses over it more than 40 years ago. Whether the land in question is an agricultural land as defined under section 4(1) of the Tenancy Act, whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and whether the provisions of the Act/relevant rules are applicable to the facts of the present case, inter-alia, would be the moot points to be decided by the Assistant Collector, after the production of cogent evidence by the parties in this regard. The real Civil Writ Petition No.19370 of 2011 -4- controversy between the parties cannot possibly be determined in the absence of such evidence. This is what the Assistant Collector was directed to determine the indicated questions by the Financial Commissioner. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned order (Annexure P14) is illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant context. Moreover, the petitioner-landlords would be at liberty to press their claim in the ejectment petition. 12. Meaning thereby, the Financial Commissioner has recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned order (Annexure P14) deserves to be and is hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioners. 14. In the light of aforementioned reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of hearing of the matter, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. 15. Needless to mention here that nothing recorded here-in-above would reflect, in any manner, on the merits during the subsequent hearing of the case as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding this writ petition. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 17.10.2011 Judge AS