The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging orders under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act regarding ejection for non-payment of land share. It held that the tenant failed to deposit the required amount within the statutory period, justifying ejection under Section 14(1).
The writ petition was dismissed in limine.
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.
CWP No.1131 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 1131 of 2012 Date of Decision: January 19, 2012
Sunder Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Paramjeet Singh, J.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 09.08.2011 (Annexure P/5) passed by respondent No.1 - Financial Commissioner and order dated 26.05.2009 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No.2 – Commissioner, Hisar.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.5 – Om Parkash, owner of the land, filed an application for ejectment in Form `L' against the petitioner with respect to the land mentioned in the petition regarding
CWP No.1131 of 2012
2
village Dhansu under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the petitioner failed to pay the share (Batai/Tihai) to respondent No.5. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hisar, vide order dated 30.09.2005 (Annexure P/1) ordered that the petitioner should pay Rs.36,334/- i.e. 1/3rd share along with 8% interest with costs after deducting Rs.3,000/- from the same, within 15 days, failing which, the petitioner would be automatically ejected from the land. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order, which has been dismissed on 16.11.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application on 24.11.2005 before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade that he was willing to deposit the amount in compliance to order dated 30.09.2005. It was pleaded that amount could not be deposited due to pendency of the appeal. The application was allowed by the Assistant Collector First Grade vide order dated 04.04.2006 (Annexure P/2) permitting the petitioner to deposit the amount in compliance of the order dated 30.09.2005 in the Government Treasury. Thus, order dated 30.09.2005 has been complied with by the petitioner. Respondent No.5 preferred an appeal against order dated 04.04.2006 before the Collector. That was dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2006 (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, respondent No.5 filed a revision against the order of the Collector, as well as the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Vide order dated 26.05.2009 (Annexure P/4), revision petition was accepted by the Commissioner with the observation that under Section 14(1) of the Act, the tenant is required to deposit the share of Batai within 15 days from the day of first hearing and on failure to do so he shall be ejected.
CWP No.1131 of 2012 3
Aggrieved against order dated 26.05.2009, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. That has been dismissed vide order dated 09.08.2011 (Annexure P/5). Hence, this writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner and the record.
The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in pursuance of order dated 30.09.2005 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner could not deposit the amount since the appeal was pending, which was ultimately dismissed on 16.11.2005. The petitioner had moved an application immediately after the decision in appeal i.e. on 24.11.2005 which was rightly allowed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and upheld by the Collector. Learned counsel has contended that orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner suffer from error of law and as such, are not sustainable. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade has nowhere calculated in his order dated 30.09.2005 about the exact amount of the share of Batai with interest and costs thereof. No notice was given to the petitioner.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The finding recorded by the Collector is not based on the facts. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade has calculated the amount in his order dated 30.09.2005 (Annexure P/1) as under:-
“ ....Therefore , I have reached to the conclusion that respondent is liable to pay the 1/3rd share of the rest of the
CWP No.1131 of 2012 4
land owner on the basis of Jhar Pedawar (produce) of Rs.36,334/- along with interest at the rate of 8% after deducting Rs.3000/- from the same, within 15 days to the petitioner. If the aforesaid amount is not being paid then he shall be automatically ejected from the land.”
The reading of the order of the Assistant Collector First Grade clearly shows that the total price of the produce on the basis of Jhar Pedawar was calculated as Rs.36,334/- out of which 1/3rd share along with 8% interest after deducting Rs.3000/- from the same has been ordered to be paid. It means, there is specific calculation made by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, the petitioner was required to deposit the 1/3rd of the assessed amount with 8% interest accrued thereon within 15 days, failing which he would automatically stand ejected.
Reading of proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act clearly shows that the tenant has to deposit the amount of batai within 15 days from the date of first hearing and on violation of that provision, the tenant is liable to be evicted. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated period. This finding has been correctly recorded by the Commissioner and has been upheld by the Financial Commissioner.
I do not find any ground to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge
January 19, 2012 vkd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the orders of Commissioner and Financial Commissioner under Section 14(1) of the Act are sustainable when the tenant failed to deposit the share within 15 days.
Whether the requirement of giving notice before ejection under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 is mandatory.
Whether the calculation of the share amount with interest by the Assistant Collector was correct.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunder Singh
State of Haryana
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
