JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. (Oral):- The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.6.1996 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana upholding the order dated 16.12.1988 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Collector Jagadhri and the ejectment order dated 4.5.1983 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Jagadhri. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 alongwith Kishan Lal, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos. 3 to 5 were tenants Gair Marusi on the land measuring 13K-4M bearing Khasra No.5/20 2(4-15), 6/16 (7-7) and 25/1(1-2), situated in village Mausa Kami Mazra, Jagadhari. Respondent No.4 Sham Sunder, being the owner of the land, used to receive 1/3rd share of the each crop at the harvesting time. During the pendency of this petition, respondent No.4 Sham Sunder died and his legal representatives were brought on record. These facts are also supported with the relevant revenue record in the form of Annexures P-1A and P-2A. 3. Sham Sunder, predecessor in interest of the private respondents, moved an application on 2.7.1979 for recovery of rent for the crops of Kharif 1976 to Rabi 1978. The said application was found without any substance and was dismissed by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Jagadhri, vide order dated 18.10.1979, Annexure P-4. However, another application was moved just after four days i.e. on 23.10.1979 by Sham Sunder for recovery of rent for crop of Kharif 1978 and Rabi 1979. Application of Sham Sunder, predecessor-in-interest of private respondents, (hereinafter referred to as the land owner) was not found full of substance but it was partly accepted to the extent of payment of Rs.268/- vide order dated 13.2.1981, Annexure P-5. Case of the petitioners was that this amount had already been paid. 4. Dissatisfied with the above-said order dated 13.2.1981 (Annexure P-5), both the parties filed their respective appeals before the Collector, who vide order dated 7.10.1981 (Annexure P-6) held that the dispute in the case was for Chakota or Batai and not for ejectment. He remanded the case to Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Jagadhri, for deciding the case afresh after giving due opportunity to both the parties. He remanded the case to Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Jagadhri, for deciding the case afresh after giving due opportunity to both the parties. Pursuant to the above-said remand over, Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Jagadhri, decided the case vide his impugned order dated 4.5.1983 (Annexure P-7) thereby ordering the ejectment of the petitioners under Section 14-A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) holding that they did not pay batai of crop of Kharif 1978. This order was challenged by the petitioners before the Collector, who set aside the ejectment order vide his order dated 31.8.1984, Annexure P-8. 5. The land owner filed an appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner vide his order dated 24.12.1985, Annexure P-9, remanded the case to the Collector on the limited issue that the land owner was proceeded ex parte and the case should be decided by the Collector afresh after hearing both the parties. This time, Collector dismissed the appeal of the petitioners holding that they failed to pay the batai for the crop of Kharif 1978. The impugned order dated 16.12.1988 (Annexure P-10) was challenged by the petitioners before the Commissioner, who did not agree with the above-said order dated 16.12.1988 passed by the Collector. The Commissioner passed his detailed order dated 11.3.1992 (Annexure P-11) preparing the reference and recommending the case to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana for setting aside the ejectment order passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade and upheld by the Collector. 6. The reference made by the Commissioner was accepted by the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 24.5.1994, Annexure P- 12 setting aside the order dated 16.12.1988 passed by the Collector Jagadhri, who had upheld the ejectment order dated 4.5.1983 passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. Thereafter a review application was filed by the land owner before the Financial Commissioner. It seems that the review application was not entertained by the Financial Commissioner and thereafter land owner filed CWP No.13651 of 1994 before this Court (Sham Sunder v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others), which was disposed of vide order dated 26.9.1994 and the same reads as under:- “This writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to accept the review application-copy Annexure P.8 and pass appropriate orders according to law. Dasti on payment.” 7. Dasti on payment.” 7. Pursuant to the above-said order dated 26.9.1994 passed by this Court, the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, not only accepted the review application but also reversed his own order dated 24.5.1994, vide impugned order dated 13.6.1996, Annexure P-13. 8. Notice of motion was issued and dispossession of the petitioners was stayed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.12.1996. Written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No.4. After hearing the parties, the writ petition was admitted for regular hearing, vide order dated 21.8.1997. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Collector as well as Financial Commissioner have completely over-looked the most material aspect of the matter while passing their respective impugned orders, that the application moved by the land owner was not for ejectment but only for recovery of rent, which is crystal clear even from the heading of the application, which was decided by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, vide his impugned order dated 4.5.1983, Annexure P-7. He further submits that the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 24.5.1994 (Annexure P-12) recorded a categoric finding that the reasons given by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, while making his reference to the Financial Commissioner, recommending for setting aside the orders of Assistant Collector 2nd Grade and Collector, were convincing and he entirely agreed with him. The reference was accepted and the ejectment orders were set aside. However, while passing the impugned order, the same Financial Commissioner contradicted himself, to such an extent that he reversed his own order altogether, ignoring the strong reasons recorded by the Commissioner, Ambala Division. The impugned order is clearly nonspeaking in this regard. He next contended that the argument raised on behalf of the petitioners and recorded in para 5 of the impugned order has not at all been dealt with qua Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. He concluded by submitting that since the impugned orders were factually incorrect and legally misconceived, the same were liable to be set aside. Finally, he prays for allowing the writ petition and for setting aside the impugned orders. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the land owner submits that the impugned orders were fully justified on facts as well as in law. Finally, he prays for allowing the writ petition and for setting aside the impugned orders. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the land owner submits that the impugned orders were fully justified on facts as well as in law. The petitioners were defaulters and their eviction was rightly ordered by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, which has been upheld by the Collector as well as Financial Commissioner, warranting no interference in the writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the State also supported the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders suffer from patent illegality and the writ petition deserves to be allowed for more than one following reasons. 12. The ejectment of the petitioners has been ordered for the alleged non-payment of batai one crop i.e. Kharif 1978. Earlier application of the land owner for recovery of rent from Kharif 1976 to Rabi 1978 was filed by him on 2.7.1979 and by that time the rent for the crop of Kharif 1978 had also become due. This application dated 2.7.1979 filed by the land owner came to be dismissed by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade vide his order dated 18.10.1979, Annexure P-4, which was never challenged by the respondent-land owner. 13. However, interestingly just after four days, another application was filed by the respondent-land owner on 23.10.1979 for recovery of rent for the crops of Kharif 1978 and Rabi 1979. While deciding this application, Assistant Collector 2nd Grade observed that land owner wrongly claimed the rent for the crop of Kharif 1978 and his claim was dismissed, as clear from the order dated 13.2.1981 (Annexure P-5). However, this application was partly allowed to the extent of Rs.268/-. On appeals having been filed by both the parties, Collector vide order dated 7.10.1981 (Annexure P-6) held that the dispute between the parties was only for recovery of rent and not for ejectment. 14. There was another strong reason with the respondent land owner, not to press his claim for recovery of rent, qua the crop of Kharif 1978. On appeals having been filed by both the parties, Collector vide order dated 7.10.1981 (Annexure P-6) held that the dispute between the parties was only for recovery of rent and not for ejectment. 14. There was another strong reason with the respondent land owner, not to press his claim for recovery of rent, qua the crop of Kharif 1978. It was the reply to his notice for recovery of rent, given on behalf of the petitioners through their counsel, vide reply dated 21.12.1978 (Annexure P-3). Through this reply, the respondent-land owner was duly intimated that since the crop of Kharif 1978 was damaged on account of flood and heavy rain, the petitioners-tenants expressed their inability in paying 1/3rd batai because there was no yield due to flood and heavy rain. 15. Further, the specific averments taken by the petitioners in para 17(xi) of the writ petition, relying upon different applications for payment of rent and related documents, being eight in number, from pages 63 to 70 of the paper book, have not been denied by the respondent-landlord in the corresponding paragraph of his written statement. It is another equally important aspect of the matter and it goes in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent-landlord. 16. Thus, it becomes crystal clear that question of law as envisaged under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC was rightly raised on behalf of the petitioners before the Financial Commissioner, who just noted the same but miserably failed to deal with it, much less giving due appreciation thereto. In this view of the matter, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the Financial Commissioner has committed patent illegality while passing the impugned order, Annexure P-13. 17. During the course of arguments, when a pointed question was put to the learned counsel for the respondent-land owner that once his application was for recovery of rent and not for ejectment, how the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade was competent, to convert an application for recovery of rent into an application for ejectment, learned counsel for respondent-land owner had no answer. In this view of the matter, the initial order dated 4.5.1983 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade was on the face of it without jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the initial order dated 4.5.1983 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade was on the face of it without jurisdiction. Since this crucial aspect of the matter has neither been discussed nor discarded but altogether illegally ignored by the Collector as well as by the Financial Commissioner, the impugned orders have resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and cannot be sustained. 18. While passing his order dated 24.5.1994 (Annexure P-12), Financial Commissioner in the operative part of the order, observed as under:- “I have heard the counsel for the respondent No.1 and gone through the record. I find that the reasons given by the Commissioner Ambala Division, Ambala, are convincing and I entirely agree with him. Therefore, I accept the reference and set aside the orders of Assistant Collector dated 4.5.1983 and the Collector Jagadhri dated 16.12.1988.” 19. However, while passing his impugned order dated 13.6.1996 allowing the review application of the respondent-land lord, he reversed his own order without making even a passing reference to the reasons recorded by the Commissioner. The operative part of the impugned order dated 13.6.1996 reads as under:- “I have heard both the counsels and gone through the record. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade and the Collector both have held that the tenant did not pay batai for kharif 78 for which they are liable for ejectment. The argument of the counsel for the tenants is not convincing as in reply to the notice of the landlord the tenant had stated that the kharif 78 has been damaged and nothing was to be paid. There was no question of waiving the claim by the landlord. The arguments of the counsel for the tenants have no force and cannot be accepted. For the reasons given above, I do not accept the recommendation of the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and uphold the orders of Assistant Collector II Grade and the Collector of Jagadhri.” 20. While passing the above-said order, the Financial Commissioner has failed to discuss anything relevant nor did he record any reason as to why he was disagreeing with the strong reasons given by the Commissioner. While passing the above-said order, the Financial Commissioner has failed to discuss anything relevant nor did he record any reason as to why he was disagreeing with the strong reasons given by the Commissioner. It would be appropriate to refer to the reasons given by the Commissioner in his reference order dated 11.3.1992 (Annexure P-11) and the relevant part thereof reads as under:- “Arguments by respondent No.1 is correct that revision cannot be made on the facts but in this case lower courts have not given any reason for deciding the facts. It is clear from A.C.IInd Grade dt.4.5.1983 that case was remanded back by Collector by this observation that when Chakotanama was written then why it is not shown in revenue record and how Batai entry is made. Dispute was with regard to Batai or Chakota, not of ejectment. A.C. IInd Grade Jagadhri was directed that after affording full opportunity to both the parties case be decided on these points. Order of A.C. IInd Grade is very short on perusing the same, it is clear that no mention in this has been made about the points, raised by Collector. Collector has also not given any reasons, on the basis of which A.C. IInd Grade order be upheld both these orders are not correct decision from legal points of view. On the basis of above points I have reached to the conclusion, that both the lower courts while deciding the order under revision have not preserved the legal procedure and both these orders suffer serious. Legal infirmities and irregulation and therefore these orders are liable to be setaside. Therefore, this case is sent with recommendation to F.C. Revenue Haryana that orders passed by lower courts under revision be set-aside.” 21. A combined reading of the above-said orders would show that the Financial Commissioner has failed to appreciate the true facts of the case because the Commissioner as well as the Collector in his earlier order dated 7.10.1981 have clearly held that in this case the dispute was only for batai (rent) and not for ejectment. 22. This material fact is further supported by the very heading of the application, which is clear even from the impugned order dated 4.5.1983 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. 22. This material fact is further supported by the very heading of the application, which is clear even from the impugned order dated 4.5.1983 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. From what has been observed above, it is unhesitatingly held that the respondent-revenue authorities proceeded on a misconceived approach while passing the impugned ejectment order against the petitioners. The impugned ejectment orders are declared to be orders without jurisdiction. 23. No other argument was raised. 24. Under the totality of facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders suffer from patent illegality, perversity and jurisdictional error. 25. Consequently, the orders dated 4.5.1983 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Jagadhri, order dated 16.12.1988 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Collector Jagadhri and also the order dated 13.6.1996 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, are ordered to be set aside. 26. Resultantly, the present writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.