IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 219 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 31,2009 Dalip Singh ....................................................................... Appellant Versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue & Another .............. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh Present: Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. .... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. C.M. No. 689-LPA of 2009 There is a delay of 17 days in filing the present appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 219 of 2009 The appellant is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Dasuya, District Collector Hoshiarpur, Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II) Punjab, and the order passed by the learned Single Judge vide which the appellant has been ordered to be evicted from the suit land. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent-Rachhpal Singh filed an application for ejectment of the appellant-Dalip Singh from land measuring 5K-1M situated in village Usman Shahid, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, on the ground that he has failed to pay the rent [ 2 ] L.P.A. No. 219 of 2009 (O&M) regularly without sufficient cause from the crop Hari 2002 till the date of filing the application. The second ground for ejectment was that the land was lying vacant for the years 1987, 1991, 1998, 1999 and 2000 without any sufficient cause as is clear from the revenue entries. All the revenue authorities i.e. right from the Assistant Collector, Dasuya, upto the Financial Commissioner has returned a categorical finding of fact that the appellant, who is a tenant, has not paid the rent of Hari 2002 upto the date besides other payments. It has been held that no payment was made by the appellant prior to the date of filing of the application for ejectment. It has also been held by the Courts below that the suit land was lying vacant for the years mentioned above and the appellant has failed to show that he was cultivating the land in dispute. In view of the aforementioned findings of fact, we find no ground to interfere in the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities and by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) JUDGE ( UMA NATH SINGH ) JUDGE 31.3.2009 rupi