Hardev Singh vs Krishna Devi and ors.

G.R. Majithia, J.—The petitioner sought declaration that he had become owner of the suit land on the ground that his father had acquired occupancy rights under the Punjab Tenacy Act, and after his death he had acquired the same rights under section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. It was further alleged that the order of ejectment passed against him on the basis of an application under Section 14A(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act filed by the respondents was bad in law, and he could not be ejected from the land in dispute on the basis of that order. Along with the suit, an applicaiton under Order 39 and Rules 1, 2, Code of Civil Procedure, was also filed, which was dceclined by the trial Court vide order dated 20th May, 1987. The same was affirmed on appeal by the laearned District Judge. It is these orders which have been challenged in this revision petition.

After a careful perusal of the impugned orders, I find no illegality or material irregularity therewith.

The respondents filed an application under Section 14 A (1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act against the petitioners which was allowed. The order was affirmed, on appeal, by the Collector, and on revision, by the Commissioner, and on further revision, by the Financial Commissioner. The writ petition filed by the petitioner in this Court too was dismissed. In the earlier ejectment application, the petitioner had taken a positive stand that he was a tenant on the suit land. He was found to be defaulter. Consequently, his ejectment was ordered. It was nowhere pleaded by him that he or his father had acquired occupancy rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act. The plea taken in this suit appears to be an unholy attempt to prevent the respondents from taking possession of the suit land in execution of the ejectment order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade which has been upheld right up to the Financial Commissioner, and thereafter by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

The learned counsel for the petitioner cited Udham Singh v. Gurdip Singh. This judgment has no bearing to the facts of the present case.

For the reasons stated above, I dismiss this revision petition. However, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.