CWP No. 7457 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7457 of 2004 Date of decision: 4.3.2008 Sushil Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.GAREWAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Rathee, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for respondents 4 and 5. K.S.GAREWAL, J. This petition has been filed by Sushil Kumar seeking quashing of the order dated April 21, 2004 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fatehabad. According to the petitioner, he alongwith his co-owners was owner in possession of 72 kanals 9 marlas of land in Bhattu Kalan. Jagdish and Shankar Lal sons of Nathu Ram were tenants on the said land. The CWP No. 7457 of 2004 2 petitioner had filed an application under Section 14 (A) (i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1956, in form L for ejectment of Jagdish and Shankar Lal-respondents 4 and 5 for non-payment of rent. The application was allowed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on January 25, 1999 and the respondents 4 and 5 were ordered to be ejected from the land in dispute. Their appeal was dismissed by the Collector on January 17, 1999. In the revision filed by the respondents, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the order ejecting the tenants on the basis of default of payment of rent for Rabi 1994 was not sustainable. The Commissioner ordered that only rent for Kharif 1994 was recoverable and directed the tenants to pay the rent in the court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fatehabad, the amount to be determined by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, on the basis of the order dated January 25, 1999 and to be paid within 30 days of the Commissioner's order which was passed on October 29, 2003. Accordingly, the Commissioner made a recommendation to the Financial Commissioner to accept the petition. The petition was accepted, however, since respondents failed to pay the rent, the petitioner applied for and got issued warrants of possession on December 23, 2003. The petitioner was constrained to file CWP 596 of 2004 which was disposed of on January 15, 2004 by the Division Bench holding that the Commissioner's letter dated December 24, 2003 did not adversely affect the petitioner as the matter with regard to ejectment of respondents had attained finality. The petitioner was given liberty to challenge the proceedings, if the respondents were allowed to deposit the rent by treating the letter dated December 24, 2003, as extension of time to make deposit. After the earlier CWP No. 7457 of 2004 3 petition was dismissed the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fatehabad, passed an order on April 21, 2004 (Annexure P/5) noticing the previous proceedings and coming to the following conclusion. “...I have come to this conclusion that due to non receiving of information of order dated 29.10.2003 in time the prescribed amount of 1994 Kharif crop could not submitted. Commissioner vide his letter dated 24.12.2003 as per the court order dated 29.12.2003 directed to fix the amount of crop of 1994 and to inform so that they could get opportunity to pay. The Hon'ble High Court neither quashed the order of Commissioner dated 24.12.2003 nor it has been stayed. So as per direction in order of Commissioner dated 24.12.2003 to fix the amount of Kharif crop of 1994, the original file order dated 25.1.1999 be summoned. ” The petitioner immediately filed the present petition, notice of motion was issued on May 13, 2004 and on May 21, 2004 an order was passed that deposit of rent by the respondents would be without prejudice to the rights of the parties. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the orders of the revenue courts in their favour were sought to be supported by pleading that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade should have specified the quantum of batai and granted permission to the respondents to deposit the amount but he straightway proceeded to issue warrants of possession. It was under these circumstances that the respondents had sought clarification from the Commissioner who had passed the order on December 24, 2003 CWP No. 7457 of 2004 4 but directed the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to assess and intimate the rent for kharif 1994, but the respondents failed to deposit the assessed amount. Subsequently, through CM 5494 of 2006 the respondents sought a stay of operation of the order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade dated January 31, 2006. Copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure R/1. Assistant Collector dismissed the application of the judgment-debtors (respondents) and directed that warrants of possession be issued and implemented on the spot on March 31, 2006. There is nothing on the record to show what rent had been fixed for kharif 1994 and whether the respondents have deposited this amount with the Assistant Collector Ist Grade since 1994. The respondents have managed to evade ejectment on one pretext or the other by employing all manner of dilatory tactics to deprive the petitioner of his land. The administration of revenue justice in revenue courts is at a low ebb. At every step the courts prolong matters and find one reason or the other to delay and frustrate the successful party. The petitioner obtained the order of ejectment in 1999 but a concession was granted to the respondents in 2003 to deposit the rent for kharif 1994. Thereafter, there was a ding-dong battle and the matter kept getting delayed without deposit of rent. It may be re-stated that the order of ejectment was passed on January 25, 1999 and deposit of outstanding rent was to be made within 30 days from the date of order failing which ejectment would be operative. It is now 9 years since the date of the original order and the petitioner is still out of possession. We have been constrained to make the above observations CWP No. 7457 of 2004 5 regarding the tactics employed by the unsuccessful litigant because litigation must attain finality some time and if litigation is dragged on successfully to frustrate the party who was to reap its fruit, the object of the respondents is achieved but importantly, the dockets of the Court get unnecessarily burdened and citizens lose faith in justice. Consequently, this petition is allowed, order Annexure P/5 is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to have Rs. 10,000/- as costs. (K.S. GAREWAL) JUDGE 4.3.2008 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) prem JUDGE CWP No. 7457 of 2004 6