Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1075 (PNJ)

Jagdish v. State of Haryana

2014-07-16

PARAMJEET SINGH

body2014
Paramjeet Singh, J. 1. All the afore-mentioned writ petitions are connected and relate to the same issue of validity of the order passed by the authorities constituted under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (in short "1953 Act'). Petitions under Section 9(1)(vii) of the 1953 Act' have been filed by respondent- No. 5 i.e. Mandir Mosamma Baldev Sahai Hari Parshad Damla through its Mohtmim Anand Parkash before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Jagadhari claiming itself to be the landlord and seeking ejectment of the petitioners in those petitions. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has been admitted. The dispute has arisen with regard to Qabuliyat Nama and enhancement of the rent which is required to be shown under Section 9(1)(vii) of the "1953 Act'. The leases had commenced in the year 1952 and Chakota was fixed @ Rs. 22/- per acre per month. Chakota was received by Hari Parshad during his life-time and thereafter, Mohtmim Anand Parkash filed a civil suit in the year 1982. The contention of landlord was that amount was grossly low, inequitable and that the batai rate is not less than 1/3rd share. It should be fixed as such and on the failure to execute lease deed for the said rent, they should be ordered to be evicted in the manner contemplated under the relevant provisions of the "1953 Act'. The Assistant Collector-Ist Grade, Jagadhri after considering the evidence on record directed the tenants to execute Qabuliyat Nama @ 1/3rd of batai in favour of owner within three months failing which tenants would be ejected. The said order was affirmed by the successive authorities including the Collector, Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner i.e. adjudicatory authorities under the 1953 Act'. These orders are challenged in the writ petitions at the instance of all the tenants. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that application under Section 9(1)(vii) of the 1953 Act' was not filed by an authorized person. Anand Parkash is not the Mohtamim of the Mandir. Learned counsel further contends that Anand Parkash is one of the trustees and a single trustee cannot file petition for eviction. Moreover, his interests are adverse to the Mandir. Learned counsel further contends that direction to enhance the rent from Rs. Anand Parkash is not the Mohtamim of the Mandir. Learned counsel further contends that Anand Parkash is one of the trustees and a single trustee cannot file petition for eviction. Moreover, his interests are adverse to the Mandir. Learned counsel further contends that direction to enhance the rent from Rs. 22/- which was fixed as Chakota, and determine it @ 1/3rd batai in proceeding under Section 9 of the 1953 Act' is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel further contends that under Section 9(1)(vii) of the 1953 Act', only eviction can be ordered, but no direction can be issued to execute a fresh Qabuliyat Nama by enhancing the rent. Learned counsel further contends that the provisions contained in Section 9(1)(vii) of the 1953 Act' provide only for eviction on refusal by the tenants to execute the Qabuliyat Nama and make no provision for determination of rent. Learned counsel further contends that Section 22 of the Punjab Tenancy Act provides for enhancement of cash rents of occupancy tenants and procedure for this is provided in Section 24 of the Punjab Tenancy Act whereunder a suit lies before the revenue court. Section 77(2)(a) of the Punjab Tenancy Act as a "first group" tenant for enhancement or reduction of rent and without following the aforesaid procedure, a summary proceeding under the 1953 Act' cannot be initiated. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No. 5 support the impugned orders and contend that under the provisions of the 1953 Act', rent can be enhanced at the most upto five years the same rent can continue. The "1953 Act' contains a provision through Section 12that sets out the maximum amount that shall be payable by a tenant for any land held by him and it can be increased. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. The matter is no more res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in Vasandha Ram and another v. The State of Haryana and others 1982 PLJ 452 has dealt with the situation of a landlord applying for a direction for execution of the Qabuliyat Nama through a petition filed under the 1953 Act'. In Vasandha Ram and another (supra), the landlord had contended for a direction for execution of the Qabuliyat Nama. In Vasandha Ram and another (supra), the landlord had contended for a direction for execution of the Qabuliyat Nama. The findings recorded in that case are in paras 4 and 5 and it would be appropriate to reproduce the same: "4. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Special Collector had no jurisdiction to get the Qabuliyat Nama executed at one third batai. We have not been impressed by this argument. In form 'C which is prescribed for execution of Qabuliyat Nama, the quantum of rent has to be mentioned. Under Section 12 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act the land-owner can recover one-third batai, or the rent customary in the area whichever is less. So the Qabuliyat Nama cannot be for more than the rent provided under Section 12 of the Act. In the present case, the Qabuliyat Nama is fully in accordance with the provisions of the Section 12 of the Act. The Special Collector has given a finding of fact which has been affirmed by the superior authorities that the customary rent was one-third batai. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in proceedings under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, the Collector can only order the tenant to execute a Qabuliyat Nama without denoting the rate of rent; that this Qabuliyat Nama has to clearly mention that the rate of rent shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act which will be determined in separate proceedings, has not commenced itself to us. The determination of rate of rent on which the Qabuliyat Nama has to be executed is inherent in the provisions of section 9(i)(vii) of the Act. Unless the amount of rent is determined, the Special Collector cannot ask the tenant to execute the Qabuliyat Nama at an appropriate rate of rent. In the absence of the mention of the rate of rent, the purpose of execution of the Qabuliyat Nama will be frustrated. To require the parties to file separate proceedings for execution of the Qabuliyat Nama, and for determining the rent which is to be paid by the tenant will be clearly against the public policy. Multiplicity of the proceedings has to be eschewed." 7. To require the parties to file separate proceedings for execution of the Qabuliyat Nama, and for determining the rent which is to be paid by the tenant will be clearly against the public policy. Multiplicity of the proceedings has to be eschewed." 7. Thereafter, the matter was considered by a Single Bench of this Court in CWP No. 20737 of 2006, titled 'Hari Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others, decided on 21.08.2013. In that case, it has been held that powers vest in the authorities to direct for execution of Qabuliyat Nama and enhancement of rent which should not be less than of 1/3rd batai. 8. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners are not sustainable. Originally, petition under Section 9(1)(vii) of the 1953 Act' was filed by Mandir Mosamma Baldev Sahai Hari Parshad through its Mohtamim Anand Parkash. Being Mohtamim of Mandir, Anand Parkash has every right to file such petition. There is no issue of trustee in this case. There' is an issue with regard to the management of property of trust which has been given to various tenants on lease. A Mohtmim has every right to protect the property of Mandir and the petition has been rightly filed through Mohtamim Anand Parkash. So far as the plea of adverse interest is concerned, the same has been considered by the authorities below. Earlier there was an agreement that amount shall be deposited in the account of one Hari Parshad. After the death of Hari Parshad, new Mohtamim has been appointed and amount is to be deposited in the account of Mandir, not in the account of individual. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. In view of above, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. Dismissed. No order as to costs.