Kishan Chand vs Financial Commissioner, Haryana

G.S. Singhvi, J.—Agricultural land measuring 121 kanals 3 Marlas situated in village Darra Khurd, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra was leased out by the predecessors of the petitioners to Shri Vasandha Ram (father of the nonofficial respondents) and another on fixed rent of Rs. 800/ per annum along with 21/2 maunds of fruit. On 10.6.1974, the landowners filed an application for fixing of 1/3rd share of the crop as Batai and for execution of Qabuliyat Nama. The same was allowed by the Special Collector, who ordered the tenants to execute Qabuliyat Nama'' in favour of the landowners from Rabi 1974 at 1/3rd ''Batai'' within three months. After unsuccessfully challenging the order of the Special Collector before the Collector, Kurukshetra, the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, Vasandha Ram etc. filed CWP No. 1025 of 1982, which was dismissed by the High Court on 16.3.1982. The S.L.P. filed by the tenants was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 14.4.1982.

During the pendency of the appeal and the revision before the Collector, the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, order of the Special Collector remained stayed upto 14.7.1981 but thereafter there was no stay on the payment of rent by the tenants to the landowners. Notwithstanding this, the tenants failed to pay the rent.

In the meanwhile, landowners filed 4 applications dated 19.8.1980, 9.2.1982, 25.8.1982 and 16.12.1982 in FormL under Section 14A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter described as ''the 1953 Act'') for ejectment of the tenants on the ground that they have failed to pay rent without sufficient cause. These applications were dismissed by the Assistant Collector IGrade, Thanesar on the ground that due to pendency of an earlier dispute, the tenants could not file application for payment of ''Batai''. The appeals filed by the landowners were allowed by the Collector, Kurukshetra, on 24.4.1984. He remanded the cases to the Assistant Collector for determining whether there was sufficient cause for nonpayment of ''Batai'' @ 1/3rd and what is effect of nonexecution of ''Qabuliyat Nama'' within three months after 14.7.1981 i.e. the date with effect from which the stay granted earlier in favour of the tenants became inoperative.

The landowners challenged the order of the Collector by filing appeals before the Divisional Commissioner on the ground that there was no justification to remand the cases to the Assistant Collector. The Commissioner, Ambala Division came to the conclusion that the appeals were not competent but he treated the same as revisions and after holding that there was no justification for the tenants not to pay the rent after the stay order had ceased to operate, he recommended to the Financial Commissioner that the plea of the landowners be accepted. The Financial Commissioner did not agree with the Commissioner, Ambala Division on the issue of maintainability of appeals and, therefore, he remanded the cases of the Commissioner for fresh decision. When the cases were listed before the Divisional Commissioner on 31.12.1985, he requested the Financial Commissioner to transfer the cases to some other officer by observing that he had already expressed opinion on merits but his request was turned down by the Financial Commissioner. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Ambala Division passed order dated 27.10.1987 dismissing the appeals of the petitioners on the ground that relationship of landlord and tenant had come to an end with the passing of order of ejectment in other proceedings.

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.1987 the petitioners filed revision petitions before the Financial Commissioner, who disposed them of vide impugned orders by remanding the cases to the Commissioner, Ambala Division for fresh adjudication.

Arguments in these petitions were heard along with LPA Nos. 586 of 1993 and 754 of 1993 filed by Gian Chand and others, who are private respondents in these cases. By an order passed today, the two appeals have been dismissed and the finding recorded by the Assistant Collector, the Collector, the Financial Commissioner and the learned Single Judge that there was no sufficient cause for nonpayment of rent by the tenants has been affirmed. In view of that judgment, it is not necessary to again deal with various issues raised in these petitions. However, we find considerable merit in the argument of Shri Mittal that the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner remanding the cases to the Commissioner, Ambala Division for fresh adjudication should be quashed and a direction be issued to the Financial Commissioner to decide the revision petitions on merit. In our view, the dismissal of the two L.P.As. filed by the tenants has substantially reduced the area of dispute between the parties and, therefore, instead of prolonging the litigation, which has remained pending for almost two decades, deserves to be brought to an end by directing the Financial Commissioner to decide the revision petitions filed by the petitioners on merit after hearing the parties.

In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Orders dated 5.10.1989 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana are quashed with the direction that the revision petitions filed by the petitioners be decided by the Financial Commissioner on merit after hearing the parties and keeping in view the judgment of LPA Nos. 586 of 1993 and 754 of 1993.