Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 158 (PNJ)

Dona Ram v. State of Punjab

2002-02-04

KARL REDDY

body2002
ORDER Karl Reddy. F. C. - Respondents No. 5 to 7 filed an application in Form K-1 for ejectment of the petitioners-tenants, from the land measuring 85K 15M comprised in Khasra Nos. 41//11(7-15), 20(8-0) 21/1(3-7), 42//16/1(4-14), 82/6/2/1(0-16), 15/2(2-18), 16/1(0-18), 83//1(8-0), 19/1(2-9), 20/l(2- 9),82//5/2(2-10), 6/1/1(1-19) 83//2(8-0), 9(8-0), 10(8-0), 11(8-0), 12)(8-0), situated in the revenue estate of Rana, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur. The Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ferozepur vide order dated 8.9.1978 ordered the ejectment of the tenants from the land in dispute [except 23K 16M comprised in Khasra Nos. 41//11(7-15), 20(8-0) 21/1(3-7), 42//16/1(4-14) sold during the pendency of the proceedings to a third party] subject to the first proviso of Section 9-A of the Old Act i.e. the tenant shall be allowed to retain possession of his tenancy to the extent of 5 standard acres including any other land which he may hold as tenant or owner, until he is accommodated on a surplus area or otherwise. The District Collector, Ferozepur vide order dated 29.12.1978 rejected the appeal against that order. The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur vide order dated 23.4.1979 recommended for acceptance to the Financial Commissioner the revision petition against the aforesaid orders on the ground that before ordering the ejectment the Revenue Officers below had not determined (i) whether the applicants and their predecessors-in-interest, the vendors of the land in dispute, were small landowners, and hence entitled to resort to Section 9(1)(i) of the Old Act to eject their tenants ? (ii) whether together the ejected tenants were to be resettled to the extent of 5 standard acres (revised to 2 h.a. first quality land, by Section 11(2) of the New Act) including any other land held or owned or held by them, or each of the ejected tenants was to be resettled on 5 standard acres (2 h.a. first quality land), including any other land held or owned or held by him ? The Financial Commissioner Taxation vide order dated 19.2.1981 rejected the reference. 2. Against this order, the tenants filed CWP No. 2190 of 1981. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide order dated 18.3.1993 remanded the case to the Financial Commissioner Taxation to deal afresh with the various factual and legal issues raised by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, especially that the tenants were entitled to two separate units for their rehabilitation. 3. Against this order, the tenants filed CWP No. 2190 of 1981. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide order dated 18.3.1993 remanded the case to the Financial Commissioner Taxation to deal afresh with the various factual and legal issues raised by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, especially that the tenants were entitled to two separate units for their rehabilitation. 3. The first issue raised by the Commissioner had already been decided by the District Collector. He held that Charan Dass s/o Topan Dass made a statement before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade that his father was allotted 17M land. No suggestion was put to the witness in cross examination that Topan Dass held any more land. The statement of the witness was supported by the Jamabandi placed on record by the applicants. Topan Dass, the original landowner, was therefore, a small landowner. The tenants had raised the issue that Bassi Bai w/o Moti Ram owned 7 acres of land which had been concealed while filing the application in Form K-1. The District Collector held that even if this 7 acres is added to the holding of the applicants, they were still small landowners as their holding is less than 17.5 acres. 4. Counsel for the petitioners has taken a further ground, namely, that the landowners having purchased the land through 3 separate sale deeds, each for specific Khasra numbers and separate mutations having been sanctioned in respect of each sale deed, the joint application for ejectment was not competent. This is linked with the second issue raised by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozeput, namely, whether the tenants were entitled on ejectment to hold 1 unit or 2 units, of 2 h.a., including any other land owned and held by them. 5. Section 4 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, contains the following definitions : "(5) "tenant" means a person who holds land under another person, and is, or but for a special contract would be, liable to pay rent for that land to that other person; xx xx (6) "landlord" means a person under whom a tenant holds land. and to whom that tenant is. and to whom that tenant is. or but for a special contract would be liable to pay rent for that land; (7) "tenant" and "landowner" include the predecessors and successors-in- interest of tenant and landowner respectively; (8) "tenancy" means a parcel of land held by a tenant of a landlord under one lease or set of conditions;" 6. Neither the parcel of land nor the lease or set of conditions under which the land was held by the petitioner-tenants under Topan Dass has changed consequent on change of ownership from Topan Dass to respondents No. 5 to 7. The tenancy is one and not two. Section 113 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 which requires notice to be served on the landlord, if a tenancy is to be partitioned, supports this interpretation. 7. Looked at another way, the Jamabandi entry on which counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance reads Dona Ram, Goma Ram, 1/2 share each. The 1/2 share each is within the one tenancy. During the pendency of the petition, Goma Ram died leaving behind 6 sons who have been impleaded as L Rs. The Jamabandi entry would now read Dona Ram 1/2 share, Saudagar Rain, Mai Ram, Lachhman Dass, Bhagwan Dass, Ram Chand, Satnam Chand ss/o Goma Ram, 1/2 share, in equal shares. I must therefore respectfully differ with 1979 PLJ 330 cited by Counsel for the petitioners, which holds that there is no distinction between joint tenancies and separate tenancies, and each of the tenants has to be accommodated on surplus area to the extent of 5 standard acres each, subject to the extent of other land owned or held by them. By that logic, the 7 ejected persons would qualify for 2 h.a. each. 8. Accordingly, the reference from the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur is rejected. To be communicated. Petition dismissed.