Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1235 (PNJ)

Ajit Singh v. Mela Singh (Dead) through LRs.

2001-11-02

KARL REDDY

body2001
JUDGMENT Karl Reddy, FC. - Financial Commissioner, Taxation vide his order dated 21.10.1998 in R.O.R. Nos. 374-375 of 1993-94 had declined to interfere with the order dated 7.4.1994 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and the order dated 30.12.1991 of the Collector, Amritsar, in Form L proceedings for ejectment of two different petitioners for failure to pay rent for the harvests Kharif, 1986 to Rabi, 1989. However, in his order dated 210.10.1998, the Financial Commissioner, Taxation had described the land as measuring 12 K - 4M, Khasra Nos. 18//16/2(1-0), 17 Min (2-0), 24 min (2-0) and 23//17(7-4) whereas the form L proceedings culminating in R.O.R. 374 of 1993-94 were in respect of land measuring 7 K - 19 M comprised in Khasra Nos. 18//17 min (2-7) and 18//24 min (5-12) as per Jamabandi for the year 1986-87 of village Khela. This order was recalled on 19.8.1999 by the Financial Commissioner in Misc. No. 70 of 1999 in R.O.R. No. 374 of 1993-94. 2. The matter was heard again by the Financial Commission Appeals-I who, vide his order dated 16.11.1999, declined to interfere on the basis that the case had been decided by his predecessor on merits on the basis of record and arguments of counsel for the parties. Against this order, the present petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 17814 of 1999 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Division Bench of the High Court vide its order dated 2.8.2000 held that since the order dated 21.10.1998 had been recalled by the Financial Commissioner, Taxation on 19.8.1999, the Financial Commissioner (Appeals)-I should have decided the matter afresh instead of reiterating the order of his predecessor. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has been tenant on the land since 1963-64 and until the disputed harvest, he was regularly paying batai though no receipt was ever issued by the landlord. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade dismissed the application in Form L on the ground that the landowner had produced no witness from the village, but a witness from another village, and also that the land owner is entitled to hissa paidawar but he is claiming theka. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade dismissed the application in Form L on the ground that the landowner had produced no witness from the village, but a witness from another village, and also that the land owner is entitled to hissa paidawar but he is claiming theka. The learned counsel for the respondent said that as per the statement of the petitioner appearing as RW1 before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, he was not even aware as to what crops he had grown or what share of the produce he had paid to the landowners for the disputed crops although his statement was recorded in 1990 i.e. a year later than the last disputed harvest. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, could not explain how the landowner had been collecting half-share of the crop as batai rent when Section 12 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 limits the rent payable by the tenant to the landlord to a maximum of 1/3rd share of the produce. 4. It is clear that the landowner had not given receipts to the tenant for the harvests prior to the disputed harvest because he was collecting rent in excess of the maximum stipulated by law. When the tenant asserted his rights, the landowner claimed that he was liable to pay a fixed sum as Theka. The tenant resisted the landowners demand to the extent of not paying rent for the disputed crops. The proper procedure, of course, for the tenant was to make application to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade in the manner provided in Section 14-A(iii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and tender the lesser amount of rent. Learned counsel for the respondents has cited a plethora of rulings starting with Raj Kantas case to show that even a single default is sufficient to render the tenant liable for ejectment. The question is whether the tenant had sufficient cause for non-payment. 5. In view of the fact that the landowner had habitually been collecting rent in excess of the maximum stipulated by law, it would be necessary to arrive at a finding whether the amount of rent received in excess in the past was greater on lesser than the rent due for the disputed harvests. The case is, accordingly, remanded to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade for recording a finding on this point. The case is, accordingly, remanded to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade for recording a finding on this point. The parties are directed to appear before him on 15.1.2002. To be communicated. Case remanded.