In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the Revenue Authority's refusal to treat issues regarding surplus land and landlord-tenant relationship as preliminary. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the view that such issues require evidence and must be decided at final adjudication.
Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civl Writ Petition No.14365 of 2011 Date of Decision : August 08, 2011.
Sheokarn
..... Petitioner
versus
Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.N.S.Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
(Oral) Surya Kant, J.
The Revenue Authorities including the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab have concurrently held that the issues, namely, as to whether the land in dispute is surplus land and if so, its effect or as to whether there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, cannot be treated as preliminary issues as the evidence is required to be led by the parties. The Financial Commissioner while agreeing with the Assistant Collector, Grade-I, Abohar on this aspect has observed as follows:-
“He decided that these issues should be decided not at the preliminary stage but at the time of final adjudication of the suit. He also held that the relevant revenue record did
[2]
CWP No.14365 of 2011
show the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship. To my mind, there is no infirmity in this line of reasoning adopted by the Assistant Collector, Grade-I or the Collector. There is no basis for the contention that the issue about the land being surplus or not should be decided at the preliminary stage. Counsel also could not point out any argument in support, except to say that in case these issues were ultimately decided against the plaintiff, then the time of the court could have been wasted. I am not impressed by this argument unnecessarily, especially since counsel himself agreed that the surplus area case had not yet been decided at the level of the final adjudication authority, i.e, the Apex Court.....”
I find no reason to differ with the view taken by the Financial Commissioner as once the parties are required to lead evidence to decide the issues referred to above, the other related issues can also be decided simultaneously.
Dismissed.
(SURYA KANT) August 08, 2011 Mohinder JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether issues regarding surplus land and landlord-tenant relationship can be treated as preliminary issues requiring evidence.
Sheokarn
Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
