C.W.P. No.4134 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.4134 of 1992 Date of Decision : 09.05.2011 Arjan Singh …Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Prem Nath Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.02.1987 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Assistant Collector and the order dated 21.10.1991 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Financial Commissioner who upheld the order of the Assistant Collector and set aside the order of the Commissioner/Collector. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ajnala for C.W.P. No.4134 of 1992 -2- ejectment of the respondents No.3 and 4 on the ground that they were tenants and had failed to pay rent from Kharif 1983 to Rabi 1986. As per the petitioner 80 kanals of inferior land was allotted to the petitioner’s brother named Saudagar Singh in the year 1964. He had inducted the respondents No.3 and 4 as tenants who cultivated the said land under him and it was so recorded in the Jamabandi. The said Saudagar Singh died issueless on 19.10.1982 and his wife had died earlier to him. Thus the entire land of Saudagar Singh including the land in question devolved upon the petitioner who is his real brother. It is further pleaded that at one stage the respondents No.3 and 4 themselves filed a civil suit for permanent injunction for restraining the petitioner to forcibly dispossessing them and the Civil Court gave a categoric finding that the respondents No.3 and 4 were tenants of the petitioner and they can be dispossessed only in due course of law but not forcibly. Subsequent to that the present petition has been filed. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents No.3 and 4 even though they have been served. In the circumstances, their case can only be examined from the material available on record. It transpires that the respondents No.3 and 4 denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the petitioner. They however did not take up any positive plea as to in what capacity they were in the possession of the land. C.W.P. No.4134 of 1992 -3- In the impugned order what has been weighed with the learned Financial Commissioner is the fact that mutation in favour of Saudagar Singh was entered after his death. As per the Financial Commissioner mutation having not conferring any title may not give any benefit to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is not deriving his title from the mutation but from the allotment (Annexure P-1). He has also relied upon the finding of the Civil Court which has become final between the parties. I find considerable force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the brother of the petitioner was allotted the land the fact that mutation was entered after his death would not divest his interest therein. More importantly there is a judgment of the Civil Court declaring the respondents No.3 and 4 to be the tenants of the petitioner. This finding was allowed to become final by the respondents No.3 and 4 themselves. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The order of the learned Financial Commissioner dated 21.10.1991 is set aside and the order of the learned Commissioner dated 26.07.1988 is restored. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 09, 2011 JUDGE ashish