IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 17425 of 2010 Date of decision: 05.09.2011 Jagjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, Chandigarh and others ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. B.S. Sehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl. AG, Punjab for the State. Mr. N.S. Rapri, Advocate for respondents No. 4 and 6. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge four orders dated 06.07.2010 (Annexure P-6), 10.02.2009 (Annexure P- 5), 31.08.2007 (Annexure P-4) and 03.12.2004 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 4. Through order Annexure P-3, the petitioner has been asked to pay arrears of rent, he being in an unauthorised possession of the land in dispute. Appeal and revision against these orders have been dismissed vide orders, Annexures P-4 to P-6. The facts noticed in brief are that the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell with Sh. Bhupinder Singh, father of respondents No. 5 and 6, who claims to have paid ` 4,50,000/- as earnest money. The sale deed was agreed to be executed upto 20.01.1996. The period was then extended up to 20.01.1998. It is Civil Writ Petition No. 17425 of 2010 -2- claimed that the possession of the land measuring 31 kanals 12 marlas was delivered by the father of respondents No. 5 and 6 to the petitioner by way of part performance of the agreement. Respondents No. 5 and 6 subsequently filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent under Section 77 read with Section 14 of the Punjab Tenancy Act against the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Magistrate (exercising the powers of Assistant Collector 1st Grade) Samrala on the ground that they are owners of the land measuring 18 kanal 13 marlas and the petitioner was in illegal and unauthorised possession of the same. It was pleaded that the petitioner had encroached upon the land without consent and so prayed for recovery of rent for the harvest Rabi Kharif 1999, similar crops for 2000-2001. Respondent No. 4 decreed the suit for recovery of ` 67963/- alongwith interest at the rate 12% per annum till its realisation. The petitioner was not able to prove his possession over the land on the basis of recital contained in agreement to sell. The petitioner had filed an appeal, which was also dismissed on 31.08.2007. The petitioner then filed the revision petition against the same, which was dismissed on 10.02.2009. It is pointed out that during the pendency of the suit, Sh. Bhupinder Singh suffered a decree dated 24.09.1998 in Civil Suit No. 276 of 18.07.1996 titled as Harjit Singh versus Bhupinder Singh. When the petitioner learnt about the same, he immediately challenged the said decree and also filed the suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement referred to above. The petitioner also filed civil suit for possession of the suit land. The Civil Civil Writ Petition No. 17425 of 2010 -3- Judge, Senior Division, Samrala, however, has dismissed the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner but has only granted him relief of refund of the earnest money alongwith some interest. The petitioner could not succeed in the suit for possession as well. The petitioner, thus, has not been able to establish his right to retain possession in the civil suit either on account of this agreement to sell or otherwise. The impugned order assessing the rent, thus, cannot possibly be challenged on any valid ground. The suit filed by the petitioner to challenge the decree in favour of respondents No. 5 and 6 has also been dismissed. In this background, the petitioner really cannot make a grievance against the impugned order requiring him to deposit the rent. The submission that the petitioner is neither tenant nor required to pay any amount on any count would not impress me. The petitioner concededly is in an unauthorised possession, in view of the judicial finding. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the order rejecting the suit for specific performance and statedly is in possession of suit land. The petitioner will have to pay the rent etc. as determined because he has no legal right to remain in possession. No case for interference in the impugned order, therefore, is made out. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 05, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE