Vishnu Bhagwan vs Financial Commissioner, Haryana

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This petition is for quashing the order of the Financial Commissioner, Annexure P3.

Briefly put, the petitioner filed an application under section 7A of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act seeking eviction of respondent No. 4. The order of eviction was passed by Assistant Collector I Grade on 29.8.1974. No appeal was filed against this order. The petitioner with a view to execute order dated 9.8.1974 filed an execution application in the Court of Assistant Collector I Grade, Narnaul, who vide order dated 7.5.1975 ordered that the decree dated 29.8.1974 be executed forthwith. Respondent No. 4 challenged this order of the Court by way of appeal but the same was dismissed by the Collector, vide order dated 3.8.1976Annexure P1. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the Collector, respondent No.4 preferred a revisionpetition which was allowed, vide order dated 18.10.1979 Annexure P3. The petitioner has assailed the legality and propriety of the order of the Financial Commissioner, Annexure P3, primarily, on the ground that order of the Assistant Collector I Grade dated 29.8.1974 had become final between the parties and was not subjectmatter of the revisionpetition and this way, the Financial Commissioner travelled beyond the ambit of his powers thereby setting aside the binding order between the parties even when the same was not under challenge.

Argument though attractive is in fact without any substance. It is the admitted case of the parties that eviction under section 7A of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was filed after coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. There is no averment in the writ petition to the effect that the area owned by and held by the petitioner does not exceed the permissible area in terms of section 4 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Section 33 of the Act declares such provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, that is to say, before a relief can be granted to a person under section 7A of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, the authorities have specifically come to a finding that such ejectment also satisfy the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. There is no material on Land Holdings Act, 1972. There is no material on record by which it can be inferred that the petitioners also satisfy the test as prescribed under the Ceiling Act. For reasons best known to the petitioners, the order of the Assistant Collector I Grade dated 29.8.1974 which had been adversely commented by the Financial Commissioner while accepting the revisionpetition of respondent No.4 has not been placed in record. During the course of arguments, counsel, however, verbally referred to the same in support of his contentions. Counsel when specifically asked whether there is any discussion in the order dated 29.8.1974 with regard to the holding of the petitioners, visavis the provisions of the Ceiling Act, admitted that the Assistant Collector I Grade has not examined the matter from this angle. On the contrary, the following observations of the Financial Commissioner on this aspect are clear:

"Permissible area as given in the 1972 Act, is different from and inconsistent with the definition given in the effect of the ''permissible area'' under the 1955 Act. And even though the latter Act uses the words ''permissible area'', yet this makes no difference to the fact that after the commencement of the 1972 Act a landowner is only entitled to the permissible area under the 1972 Act. Therefore, the permissible limit with reference to which a landowner is competent to eject a tenant under section 7A(1) of the 1955 Act can only be the permissible areas as defined under the 1972 Act because the provisions relating to the former stand repealed. But it is clear from the Assistant Collector''s order dated 29.8.1974 that the respondentlandowners had not sought the ejectment of the petitionertenant on the ground that they held less than the ''permissible area'' to which they were entitled under the 1972 Act but on the ground that they held less than the permissible area under the 1955 Act. As a matter of fact there is not even an averment by the respondentlandowner to the effect that they held less than the permissible area under the 1972 Act. Since after the commencement of the 1972 Act, the landowner can eject a tenant under section 7A(1) of the 1955 Act only if he holds less than the permissible area under the 1972 Act and since this point has not been gone into at all by the Assistant Collector I Grade, Narnaul, therefore, I set aside the order dated 29.8.1974 passed by the Assistant Collector."

In this view of the matter, I find no merit in any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Since there is no clear finding with regard to the status of the petitioner under Ceiling Act, it would be just and proper if the matter is once again examined by the Assistant Collector I Grade in the light of the present order. The parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector I Grade, Narnaul, who would examine the status of the petitioners in terms of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 and will also not be swayed by the earlier orders passed by the authorities whereby surplus area allotted to the respondent was cancelled for one reason or the other, i.e., in case an order of eviction is passed, the respondent''s right of resettlement on surplus area shall be examined de novo. The parties are directed to appear before the said authority on 28.10.92.