IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4505 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.11.2011 Atma Ram son of Ram Ditta son of Mohri Ram, resident of Village Chak Mannewala, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur. ....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab, through the Secretary Revenue Department, Punjab Government at Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Prem Nath Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab, for respondents 1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The order of the Financial Commissioner is challenged at the instance of the petitioner, who was an “ejected tenant”. The allotment by way of resettlement after he was ejected from out of the surplus pool available was a subject of contest at the instance of the 4th respondent-Jantar Singh. His objection was that in a draw of lots made on 01.11.1977, he had been shown in serial No.2 as a landless Civil Writ Petition No.4505 of 1987 (O&M) - 2 - person and he ought to have been preferred in the manner of allotment. This objection was upheld and a resettlement ordering the allotment of the disputed properties made in favour of the petitioner was set aside and the orders were passed directing the allotment to be considered in favour of the 4th respondent and remanded to the Assistant Collector for necessary action. It is this order which is in challenge before this Court. 2. The petitioner had been a tenant of the property of one Amin Chand and Kishan Chand @ Har Kishan Lal, who were the original owners of the property. The order of ejectment was made on 26.12.1978 but the Assistant Collector held that it will be subject on the tenant's right of resettlement under Section 9-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The Government had declared surplus in an extent of 85 kanals 15 marlas in the hands of Abinash Chander and applications had been filed at the instance of the landlords Amin Chand and Kishan Chand for giving effect to the order of ejectment and for resettlement of the tenant in the property declared as surplus in the hands of Abinash Chander. Out of the extent of 85 kanals 15 marlas which was equivalent to 1.6114 hectares, an extent of 58 kanals 8 marlas of land had been directed to be allotted to him which was equivalent to 1.0648 hectares. This extent was exactly the extent of property in respect of which the tenant was ordered to be evicted at the instance of Amin Chand and Kishan Chand. Civil Writ Petition No.4505 of 1987 (O&M) - 3 - 3. This allotment was contested by the 4th respondent and there was a direction given by the Financial Commissioner for consideration of allotment to him in the manner referred above. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out to the relevant provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and Rules that detail the procedure of how an ejected tenant could be readjusted. The relevant provisions are contained in Section 9, 9-A, 10-A and 14-A of the Act. Section 9 contains the provision for ejectment of a tenant at the instance of small landowner, who makes a declaration of the property which he wants to secure through his own personal cultivation. It is an admitted case that the original landlords claim themselves to be small landowners and obtained the order of ejectment only on the ground of their requirement for personal cultivation. Section 14-A of the Act sets out a procedure for ejectment and recovery of arrears but makes it subject to the provisions of Section 9-A. Section 9-A contains a provision of accommodation of tenant from surplus area. This accommodation shall be done on a surplus area in accordance with the provisions of Section 10-A. The resettlement of the tenant, namely, the petitioner came about in the property allotted as surplus in the hands of Abinash Chander in terms of Section 10-A. 4. The manner of consideration of the claim of a tenant is contained in Rules 13 to 17 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules of 1956. Rule 13(2) provides that in every case where a Civil Writ Petition No.4505 of 1987 (O&M) - 4 - tenant's application is considered, the Circle Revenue Officer could dispossess the tenant and forwarded the papers for resettlement. The resettlement will be done on the application by a tenant under Rule 15 on consideration of his application in Form K-5. Rule 16 contemplates suo motu proceedings for resettlement and the procedure prescribed for disposing applications under Rules 14 and 15 are set out through Rule 17. The said Rule provides that when an application is filed either under Rule 14 or 15 or when the Circle Revenue Officer starts proceedings under Rule 16, he shall after hearing the parties concerned and after making such enquiries record a finding on; (a) whether the landlord is desirous of ejecting his tenant; (b) whether the tenant is liable to be protected; and (c) the extent of area required for resettlement and for which the tenant indicates his preference for resettlement. In the whole scheme of Rule 17, the notice that is contemplated is only to “person concerned”. It nowhere contemplates notice to a landless person, who has been identified as a person eligible for allotment. If the Financial Commissioner was, therefore, directing that the 4th respondent's claim was to be considered, it could have been done only in cases where there was no claim by any tenant and the property available in surplus pool is to be allotted to persons, who had right of consideration in some way in the property. If there were no such tenants at all, it could well have been in favour of persons, who are landless persons, such as the 4th respondent. When the Civil Writ Petition No.4505 of 1987 (O&M) - 5 - landlords had sought for ejectment and when the tenant was required to be resettled and a property had been identified as available from the surplus pool, the question of adjusting a landless person before the ejected tenant cannot arise. The direction for consideration of the 4th respondent's claim and a remand therefor by the Financial Commissioner cannot, therefore, be held to be tenable. 5. The allotment of the property by way of resettlement shall be only in favour of the petitioner and the impugned orders of the Financial Commissioner are liable to be quashed. The orders in the lower rung of hierarchy which got merged with the order of the Financial Commissioner and were affirmed by the Financial Commissioner are also consequently quashed. The writ petition is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 02.11.2011 sanjeev