CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.489 OF 1985 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 03, 2009 Bakhshish Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. P. C. Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. Mr. K. S. Cheema, Advocate, for L.Rs of respondent No.5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have impugned the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, holding that the petitioners can not execute the decree obtained by their vendors from whom they have purchased this land in dispute. The facts, in brief, are that one Major Kuldip Singh and Joginder Singh were owners of the land under whom Inder Singh, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.489 OF 1985 :{ 2 }: respondent No.5 (now deceased represented through his L.Rs), was a tenant. Major Kuldip Singh filed an application, seeking ejectment of respondent No.5, Inder Singh from the land measuring 139 Kanals 12 Marlas situated in Agwar Khwaja Baju, Tehsil Jagraon. Decree dated 9.5.1967 was accordingly passed in favour of Kuldip Singh, directing ejectment of respondent No.5. This decree, however, was subject to two conditions. Decree holder was required to pay a sum of Rs.1700/- and was to settle the tenant on the surplus land measuring 5 standard acres before the dispossession of the tenant could be ordered. The petitioners bought this land on 5.5.1972 for consideration of Rs.1,35,000/-. The petitioners then filed an application for execution of the decree. Assistant Collector Ist Grade, through his order dated 24.3.1975, directed delivery of the possession of the suit land to the decree holders. The Collector, however, remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector for re- examination vide his order dated 30.9.1975. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade was to see as to what steps had been taken to rehabilitate the tenant on 5 standard acres of land as that was the condition precedent for his ejectment. He was also to see whether the decree, which was obtained by Major Kuldip Singh, was open to be executed by the petitioners as the decree was in favour of small land owners and it was to be seen if they could transfer this decree to the petitioners in view of the legal principle. The order passed by the Collector, remanding the case, was impugned before the Commissioner. He, however, dismissed the same. On remand, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagraon, transferred the case to Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Khanna, who CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.489 OF 1985 :{ 3 }: found that the conditions contained in order dated 9.5.1967 had not been complied with by the original land owners. It was found that neither Rs.1700/- had been paid nor the tenant had been resettled on the surplus area equivalent to 5 standard acres. He also viewed that the decree, being personal to Major Kuldip Singh, could not be implemented by the subsequent vendee. He accordingly declined to execute the decree against respondent No.5. This order was impugned before Collector, Ludhiana, who dismissed the appeal on 31.12.1982 on the ground that it was barred by limitation as well as on merit. The said order was impugned before Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. He then forwarded a reference to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The Financial Commissioner, however, decided the reference against the petitioners, which is now impugned in the present writ petition. The Financial Commissioner, while up-holding the order, did not agree with the part of the order passed by the Collector, where the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. The Financial Commissioner, however, proceeded to decide the case on merits and held that condition regarding payment of Rs.1700/- and resettlement of respondent No.5 on 5 standard acres of land, which were pre-requisite for ejectment, have not been fulfilled. He also held that the decree being personal could not be executed by the petitioners. Notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed by respondent No.5. In his reply, respondents No.5 has clearly averred that conditions upon which his ejectment was ordered, have not been CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.489 OF 1985 :{ 4 }: complied with. He, thus, continued to be a tenant on payment of Chakota and has accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the condition of payment of Rs.1700/- has been complied with and to show the same, he points out that there was a decree against respondent No.5 for recovery of Rs.3141/- on account of Chakota. Accordingly, the sum of Rs.1700/- could easily be adjusted against the said amount which was due against respondent No.5. This stand of the petitioners can not be accepted that the payment of Rs.1700/- was made. Concededly, no efforts were made by the petitioners to pay this amount. Even otherwise, the counsel for respondent No.5 would point out that he had deposited this amount of Rs.3141/- in the Treasury and as such, the submission made by counsel for the petitioners that Rs.1700/- stood paid is totally misconceived and misplaced. As found by Financial Commissioner, the petitioners have not been able to show if they had complied with the second condition of adjusting the tenant on 5 standard acres of land. As per counsel for the petitioners, tenant-respondent was re-settled at the surplus area of Smt.Dhan Kaur. Assistant Collector found that this allotment had not materialised. It is stated to be without any basis by counsel for the petitioners. Financial Commissioner noticed that this allotment could not materalise as the order declaring the surplus area of Smt.Dhan Kaur did not remain since there was no surplus area at the hands of this lady. Thus, it is clear that respondent No.5 could not be settled on 5 standard acres of land and this condition has also not been satisfied. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to say much in regard to the finding of the Financial Commissioner CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.489 OF 1985 :{ 5 }: that this decree of ejectment was personal to the original land owners, as the application was under Section 9(1)(i) of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953, the tenant being of small land owner. When such small land owner sells his land, it does not necessarily follow that the transferee would also be a small land owner. Accordingly, it was found that the decree was personal to the small land owner and could be executed by him alone and not by the petitioners who were the subsequent vendees. I do not find any infirmity in this view taken by the Financial Commissioner. In any event, the petitioners have not complied with the conditions on which respondent No.5 was ordered to be ejected and accordingly, he was not in any position to seek execution of the decree otherwise. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. February 03, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE