Civil Writ Petition No.2438 of 2009 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 27, 2011 Gurudwara Takhat Shri Keshgarh Sahib, Anandpur Sahib ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Mr.Som Nath Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Jattana, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the State. Mr.Sarwan Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.N.S.Rapri, Advocate, for respondent Nos.5 to 12. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner-SGPC has approached this court to impugn the order dated 9.1.2009 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala. The petitioner-SGPC had filed a suit under Sections 77 (e), (i) and (n) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1877 for ejectment of the respondents from 28 Kanals 13 Marlas of land and also for recovery of rent on the ground that the petitioner is the owner and respondents Civil Writ Petition No.2438 of 2009 (O&M) : 2 : are its tenants. Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Anandpur Sahib dismissed the suit of the petitioner on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. As per the petitioner, their ownership was proved on the basis of revenue record while deciding issue No.2. This finding has been reproduced in the writ petition. The Collector, Roopnagar dismissed the appeal against this order on 13.11.2006 after holding that the petitioner is the owner and respondents are Gair Marusi. The petitioner, however, was non- suited on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to decide the case and it ought to be decided either under Section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act or under Sections 9, 14 (ii) of the Punjab Security Act. The Commissioner dismissed the revision petition on 7.8.2008. The petitioner, in the meantime, had also filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Religious Premises & Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 praying for eviction of the respondents. This application was filed while the revision petition was pending before the Commissioner. The Collector allowed this application on 17.11.2008 and held the respondents being in unauthorised possession of the land belonging to the religious institution. The Collector accordingly has held that they are liable for ejectment. The Collector also took a view that if a party had been litigating under the wrong provisions of law or enactment, it would not be a bar for filing a fresh case under the appropriate Act. The respondents filed an appeal against the same and Commissioner has set-aside the order passed by the Collector on 9.1.1999. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Collector has Civil Writ Petition No.2438 of 2009 (O&M) : 3 : passed a cryptic order without application of mind and without discussing the evidence. Further grievance is that the Collector even did not summon the record, but still has mentioned in the impugned order that the record was perused. I have considered the submissions made before me. Having noted the submissions made, the Commissioner has set-aside the order passed by the Collector by making the following observations:- “I have gone through the papers of the case and heard the arguments put forward by the counsel carefully. On close perusal of the paper and arguments, it is observed that according to the revenue record, the land in question is not owned by the S.G.P.C. as is submitted by the counsel for the appellants and I am of the same view. It is further observed that without having ownership, no body can claim rent (arrear or present) or eviction from any premises. This was also so held up to this court in earlier litigation between the parties under Pb.Tenancy Act. Accordingly, I accept this appeal and set aside the order of the District Collector under challenge.” A perusal of the above part of the order would clearly show that the Commissioner had not properly applied his mind to the facts of the case. It would have been more appropriate for him to peruse the record and to discuss the evidence led by the parties on the basis of record produced. The order passed by the Commissioner appears to be cryptic and does not contain good reasons. Civil Writ Petition No.2438 of 2009 (O&M) : 4 : Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside. Case will go back to the Commissioner for re-considering the appeal after affording proper opportunity to the respective parties. Counsel for the parties point out before me that in the meantime the Commissionorate at Ropar has been created. Let the case go back to Commissioner, Patiala, who may transmit it to Commissioner, Ropar, who apparently would have jurisdiction now to deal with the issue. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. September 27, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE