Civil Writ Petition No. 12227 of 2005(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Civil Writ Petition No. 12227 of 2005(O&M) Date of decision: 10.12.2008 Phool Singh and others ........Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Surinder K. Bishnoi, Sr. DAG, Haryana for respondents No. 1 to 4 Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate for respondents No. 5 to 7 -.- J.S.Khehar , J. (Oral) C M No. 23971 of 2008 C.M. is allowed. Annexures P-15 and P-16 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main case The respondents filed an application seeking ejectment of the father of the petitioners on the ground, that the petitioners father had not been paying the batai tehai since the khariff crop of 1986. The categoric stand adopted by the respondents was, that no payment had been made even thereafter till the filing of the ejectment application on 20.12.1989 (Annexure P15). The petitioners father filed a reply to the application for Civil Writ Petition No. 12227 of 2005(O&M) 2 ejectment on 01.06.1990 (Annexure P-16). It was averred therein, that the petitioners father was unaware of the fact, that the respondents had purchased the land in question. Be that as it may, the fact that the respondents had purchased the land in question in 1986 was not disputed at the hands of the petitioners father. Insofar as the payment of rent is concerned, the categoric stand adopted by the petitioners father in the written statement filed by him was, that he was under the impression, that the earlier owner i.e., Jagat Narain, was still the owner of the land, and that, under the aforesaid mistaken belief, rent was paid by the petitioners father to the earlier owner i.e., Jagat Narain. It was also the categoric stand adopted by the petitioners father in the aforesaid written statement, that the proof of payment of rent by way of batai tehai was available with him, and that, the same had been attached with the written statement filed by him (Akhe Ram). In order to determine the veracity of the factual position depicted in the written statement filed by Akhe Ram i.e., father of the petitioners, we required the learned counsel for the petitioners to invite our attention to the proof attached with the written statement. In response to our query, learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the receipts, Annexures P-3 and P-4 (appended to the instant writ petition). A perusal of Annexure P-3 reveals the payment of rent to Jagat Narain on 12.03.1989, for the khariff crop of 1988, and Annexure P-4 reveals the payment of rent in the form of one sack of gram, which was received by Jagat Narain on 06.05.1990, but the instant receipt does not depict the period for which the aforesaid payment was made. Civil Writ Petition No. 12227 of 2005(O&M) 3 The only question to be determined while adjudicating the present controversy in determining the challenge raised by the petitioners to the impugned orders dated 13.02.1996 (Annexure P-9), 03.08.1999 (Annexure P-11) and 21.02.2005 (Annexure P-14) is, whether or not the petitioners father paid rent in the form of batai tehai for the period commencing from Khariff 1986 till the filing of the ejectment application on 20.12.1989. It would be relevant to record, that the receipts allegedly attached with the written statement (which are available on the record of the instant writ petition as Annexures P-3 and P-4) were found to be not genuine by the Revenue Authorities. For the present, it is not even necessary for us to determine the genuineness of the receipts, Annexures P- 3 and P-4. At best, the aforesaid receipts pertain to the payment of batai tehai for the years 1989-90. The claim of the respondents in the ejectment application filed by them is from the khariff crop of 1986 onwards. No proof, whatsoever, was placed before the statutory authority either by the predecessor of the petitioners, or by the petitioners, depicting the payment of rent by way of batai tehai for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988. No such material has even placed on the record of the instant writ petition. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there cannot be any doubt about the fact, that the petitioners (or their father) on whose shoulders the onus to establish the payment of batai tehai rested, have failed to substantiate the same, before the statutory authorities and even before this Court. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the impugned orders, referred to herein-above. Since payment of rent for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988, has not been substantiated, we are satisfied, Civil Writ Petition No. 12227 of 2005(O&M) 4 that the orders passed by the relevant statutory authorities were fully justified. Dismissed. [J.S.Khehar] Judge [Nirmaljit Kaur] Judge December 10, 2008 mohan