CWP No.5639 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5639 of 1992 Date of Decision: 16.05.2011 Yad Ram & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. Aas Mohammad & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr.Gopi Chand, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. --- Ajay Tewari, J . (Oral) This petition has been filed challenging the orders of the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner vide which revision petition/plaint filed by the petitioners were dismissed. In an application for eviction of the petitioners, the petitioners moved an application for amendment of their written statement seeking to claim that they had spent Rs.6,000/- on the improvement of the land. This application for amendment was declined by order dated 7.11.1990 and on the same day eviction CWP No.5639 of 1992 2 order was passed. Learned Assistant Collector noticed that eviction order was passed with the purpose that the petitioners were to be resettled on surplus land. It has also to be mentioned that the petitioners were evicted as sons of their landlords became small landowners and this land fell within the land which had been reserved by the said land owners. Learned Assistant Collector noticed that the petitioners had been prolonging the matter for years having even come up to this court at one stage for leading additional evidence which was allowed on payment of costs. Even before this court they had not taken any plea that they wanted to amend their written statement. Even otherwise, learned Assistant Collector rightly opined that the plea of compensation for making improvements was not required to be taken by amending the written statement. In a nutshell what has transpired in this case is that small land owners have now been deprived of getting their land for the last almost 5 decades. Even before this court dispossession of the petitioners was stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that revision petition of the petitioners was dismissed on the ground that appeal lay to the District Collector while petitioners had filed a revision. As per learned counsel even if this were so, it was incumbent upon the learned authority to have returned the petition for filing it in an appropriate court. I find that the Financial Commissioner CWP No.5639 of 1992 3 has discussed the entire gamut of the case. Delay has been caused by the petitioners. The fact is that even before this court no prayer was made for amendment and admission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no recent addition to capital assets has been made with or without the consent of the landowners by the petitioners. A perusal of the order of Assistant Collector also makes interesting reading. It is held that right from the date when the petitioners took the land it was barani one crop land and it continued to be so till order of eviction was passed. Thus, there is no question of any improvement having been made on the land. Keeping in mind all the above facts, the eviction of the petitioners as well as the rejection of their plea for amendment cannot be held to be illegal. The petition is dismissed. (Ajay Tewari) 16.05.2011 Judge rp