C.W.P No. 1046 of 1990 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 1046 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision : August 17, 2010 Ajit Singh, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Chander Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Sangwan, Advocate for respondent No.4. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 1.6.1981 and 25.7.1989, Annexures P-4 and P-6 respectively. Respondent No.4 had filed a suit before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Bhiwani with the following prayer :- “11. It is, therefore, prayed that the decree to the effect that the entry about the Occupancy Tenancy under Sections 5 & 8 of Act No.16 of 1887 relating to agricultural land bearing Khewat No. 91 Khatoni No.179 C.W.P No. 1046 of 1990 (O&M) ::2:: bearing Killa Nos.17/13/2 (4-0), 14(8-0), 15(8-0), 16(8- 0), 17/17(8-0), 25(8-0), measuring 44 kanals 0 marla situated in village Dhani Mahu, Tehsil and District Bhiwani in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with costs be passed by the Court and any other relief to which the plaintiff in the alternative is entitled be also kindly granted.” The petitioner filed the written statement pleading that the said was a suit for declaration and, thus, lay only before the Civil Court. A plea was also taken that in-fact by an order dated 21.11.1980, respondent No.4- tenant had been ejected. The Assistant Collector did not go on to the merits of the case but dismissed the suit on the preliminary ground that the tenant had sought a decree for declaration which could only be granted by the Civil Court. The appeal of respondent No.4 was accepted by holding that even though the prayer clause was not happily worded yet it was deemed that respondent No.4 was claiming occupancy rights. Consequently, the Collector remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for decision on merits. The Commissioner accepted the revision filed by the petitioner-landlord. On a second revision filed by the respondent No.4/tenant, the impugned order was passed by the Financial Commissioner again holding that the words of the plaint would not be determinative in the present case and, thus, maintaining the order of the Collector, remanded the case back for decision on merits, after allowing the revision. In my opinion, no such error can be pointed out in the impugned order so as to justify interference under Article 226 of the C.W.P No. 1046 of 1990 (O&M) ::3:: Constitution of India. It must be borne in mind that respondent No.4-tenant was seeking to take advantage of a beneficial legislation and a mere mis- description of the relief could not be held to have dis-entitled him from prosecuting and proving his case. Of-course, if the petitioner is able to prove that respondent No.4-tenant was no longer a tenant at all and had been ejected, necessary consequences would follow. Consequently, finding no force in this writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Both the learned counsel state that since it is an old matter, they are not in contact with their respective client. Consequently, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani shall now issue notice to the parties before finally proceeding with the matter. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 17, 2010. JUDGE `kk'