IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 478 of 2010 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 19.01.2011 Amar Nath .... APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. D. Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Amar Nath son of Balku has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 11.12.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby his writ petition (CWP No. 17549 of 2009) challenging the orders of his ejectment from the land in question, passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kaithal; Collector, Kaithal; Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala; and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, has been dismissed. Though this appeal is barred by time and the appellant has filed an application (CM No. 1356 of 2010), duly supported by his affidavit, for condoning the delay of 31 days in filing the appeal, but we have heard LPA No. 478 of 2010 -2- learned counsel for the parties on merits. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and going through the aforesaid orders, including the order of the learned Single Judge, as well as the written reply, filed by the respondents, we are of the opinion that the appellant has no case and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed his writ petition. In this case, the land in dispute, measuring 44 Kanals 14 Marlas, was initially owned by one Ram Devi, who died in the year 1947, without leaving any legal heir. After her death, the said land was escheated to the State and it was declared as `Nazool land'. Thereafter, in the revenue record, the land was recorded under the ownership of the Government. However, Balku (father of the appellant) was recorded as Gair Marusi on payment of 1/3rd Batai. The State Government, being owner of the land, made efforts to make Balku to pay the Batai, but he did not make any payment. Ultimately, proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises Act, 1971 were initiated against Balku before the Collector. In those proceedings, order of eviction was passed against him on 20.1.1982, against which Balku filed an appeal before the Commissioner, who vide order dated 11.5.1982 set aside the order of ejectment on the ground that the department can take action against Balku under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Thereafter, the department moved an application before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, against Balku, father of the appellant, for his ejectment on account of non-payment of Batai under the Punjab Security of LPA No. 478 of 2010 -3- Land Tenancy Act, 1953. During the pendency of those proceedings, Balku died on 1.9.1988, and the appellant was impleaded as party to those proceedings. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, for stopping the ejectment proceedings. The said application was dismissed on 15.2.1996, against which the appellant preferred a revision petition before the Commissioner, who recommended for setting aside the order dated 15.2.1996 on the ground that under Section 21 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenancy Act, 1953, the Government has no right to evict the appellant from the disputed land and the right is available only under the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The said recommendation was accepted by the Financial Commissioner. Thereafter, the department initiated the proceedings of eviction against the appellant under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, wherein it was held that neither the predecessor of the appellant nor the appellant paid any rent/Batai, and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade passed the order of ejectment against the appellant on 8.1.2007. The said order of ejectment was affirmed in appeal and revision, upto the Financial Commissioner. It is an admitted fact that after the decision of the Financial Commissioner, possession of the disputed land has been taken by the State and the same has been given on lease in open auction. The writ petition, filed by the appellant, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, while observing that all the revenue authorities have recorded a concurrent finding of fact regarding the non-payment of Batai/rent by the appellant or his LPA No. 478 of 2010 -4- predecessor. Learned Single Judge also rejected the contention of the appellant that during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings, the suit filed by him under Section 77 read with Section 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 to declare him as owner being occupancy tenant without payment of Batai will debar the authorities to pass the ejectment order. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents-State pointed out that the appellant is prolonging the litigation on one pretext or the other and is filing one after the other frivolous suit or proceeding to delay the matter. He has pointed out that at one stage, in the year 1985, father of the appellant filed a suit for declaration regarding the disputed land, claiming adverse possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction, but the said suit was dismissed by the civil court on 26.7.1986. Thereafter, father of the appellant filed appeal against the dismissal of his suit, which was withdrawn by him on 3.8.1987, without seeking any permission to file fresh suit. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the fact that in this case, neither the appellant nor his father had ever paid any amount of Batai/ rent to the respondents. However, he argued that the appellant was a tenant having right of occupancy, due to which the land vested in him as owner and to declare his ownership on the land, he filed a suit under Section 77 read with Section 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, and during the pendency of the said suit, the impugned order of ejectment could not have been passed against him. In this regard, he has referred to the order LPA No. 478 of 2010 -5- dated 18.12.2006 (Annexure P-7), whereby the Assistant Collector Ist Grade dismissed the application filed by the appellant for staying the ejectment proceedings during the pendency of the said suit. A perusal of the certified copy of the said order, it appears that the said suit was filed by the appellant after the initiation of the ejectment proceedings against the appellant and the said suit was decided on 8.1.2007, but the appellant has not placed on record copy of the said final order. It appears that the appellant has concealed something from the court. Even otherwise, in that suit, the ejectment proceedings pending against the appellant were not stayed. Therefore, merely on the basis of the filing of the said suit, which was decided on 8.1.2007, the ejectment order, passed against the appellant on the basis of the admitted fact that he has not paid any amount of Batai/rent, cannot be held to be illegal and without justification. Thus, in view of these facts, we are of the opinion that the appellant has no case on merits and the revenue authorities have passed the orders of ejectment against him, as he has not paid even a single penny of rent/Batai to the land owner, and those orders have been rightly not interfered by the learned Single Judge. No merit. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE January 19, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE