Dismissed

Sain Dass & Ors. v. F.C.(Appeals) Pb & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Jan 2012CWP/2332/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order dismissing an application for receipt of rent before an Assistant Collector. The court held the application non-maintainable regarding Local Body properties under the relevant Act. The interim stay order was vacated.

What did the court decide?

The interim order of stay is vacated, and the writ petition is dismissed.

Sain Dass & Ors. Vs F.C.(Appeals) Pb & Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.2332 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:11.01.2012

Sain Dass and others

....Petitioners

versus

Financial Commissioner, Appeal (S), Punjab, Chandigarh, and another.

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶9

Present: Mr. Lalit Pathak, Advocate, for Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. S.S.Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1.

¶11

Mr. B.S.Guliani, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶12

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No.

¶13

To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.

¶15

----

¶16

K.Kannan, J. (Oral)

¶17

The case is of the year 1988 and the counsel Mr.Lalit Pathak, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the counsel on record for the petitioner, seeks for time. The petitioner has had the benefit of interim order of stay since long and the counsel still says that he is not fully prepared. I have declined the prayer for an adjournment and proceed to pass the order on the basis of records on merits and with the assistance of the respective counsel for the respondents.

¶18

Civil Writ Petition No.2332 of 1988 (O&M) - 2 -

¶19

The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Financial Commissioner dismissing the petitioners' application for deposit of rent. The petitioners' contention was that he had fishing right in the pond belonging to the panchayat and the respondent was not however receiving the rent. The application had been filed before the Assistant Collector for receipt of rent in an attempt to legitimize his possession. It bears from the averments in the petition that the Gram Panchayat had taken steps earlier for eviction under the Village Common Lands Act but the proceedings were dismissed for non-prosecution of the case.

¶20

While the application was resisted by the Gram Panchayat on the ground that there was no authority for the Assistant Collector to entertain a petition for receipt of rent otherwise than under the power granted to him under Section 14-A (iii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, such a power could be exercised only in respect of tenancies for which the Act was applicable. The contention by the panchayat was that in terms of Section 21, the Act itself was inapplicable to properties belonging to Government or Local Bodies.

¶21

While the objection was upheld and the petition was dismissed, the Commissioner had taken a view that since the petitioner claimed himself only to be a tenant, he was entitled to make an application for receipt of rent. Adverting to the source of power for the Assistant Collector to receive the rent on behalf of the

¶22

Civil Writ Petition No.2332 of 1988 (O&M) - 3 -

¶23

Local Body, the Financial Commissioner held that he had no such power in terms of Section 21 of the Act and concluded that the application for receipt of rent itself was not maintainable.

¶24

In all the grounds of challenge to the order of the Financial Commissioner, I do not find any reference anywhere as to how in the face of Section 21, the application could be filed for receipt of rent in relation to a property belonging to the Local Body. Now the counsel for the petitioner would interject to say that his possession shall not be disturbed except in due process of law. It will be going beyond the brief to allow the petitioner a benefit of a relief which was not even contained in the original petition before the Assistant Collector which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. It was simpliciter an application for receipt of rent. It had been allowed originally by the Commissioner but later set aside with the Financial Commissioner's holding that the application itself was not maintainable before the Assistant Collector. In my view, it is a correct statement of law that would require no intervention. No further relief is possible in this writ petition. The interim order granted already shall stand vacated. 6. The writ petition is dismissed.

¶25

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶26

11.01.2012 sanjeev

Sain Dass & Ors. v. F.C.(Appeals) Pb & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sain Dass & Ors. v. F.C.(Appeals) Pb & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukhi Ram Vs Commissioner,Ambala Div.Etc.

Dalip Kaur Vs Punjab State through Financial Commissioner

O.P.Ohri Vs State of Pb.

Harinder Paul Singh etc. Vs F.C.Hry.Etc.

Rajinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Nirmal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.