Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan And Others vs Financial Commissioner And Others on 3 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085528
231 (2 cases)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1)
CWP-23431-2010
2010 (O&M)
KRISHAN AND ANOTHER
...Petitioners
Versus
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), HARYANA
AND OTHERS
...Respondents
(2)
CWP-999-2011
2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 03.07.2024
KRISHAN AND OTHERS
...Petitioners
Versus
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), HARYANA
AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present : Mr. Manoj Makkar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, A.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.5.
HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of CWP No.23431 of 2010 titled as
Krishan and another vs Financial Commission
Commissioner
er (Revenue) Haryana and
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085528
others as well as CWP No.999 of 2011 titled as Krishan and others vs
Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Haryana and others, as both the cases
involve common question of law and facts.
2. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being
derived from CWP No.23431 of 2010 titled as Krishan and another vs
Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Haryana and others.
3. Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside the order dated
19.07.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner
(Revenue), Haryana and order dated 14.10.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by
the learned Commissioner, Rohtak; whereby, the order dated 01.08.2006
(Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Collector, Rohtak, has been set aside
and the order dated 28.05.2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned
Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Meham, has been upheld.
4. Briefly, respondent No.5-Mandir Darbari Lal, Meham, District
Rohtak, filed an eviction suit under Section 14-A(1) of the Punjab Security
of Land Tenures Act, 1953 against the present petitioners and others,
seeking their eviction from land comprised in Khasra No.1272 (5 bighas -
8 biswas) and Khasra No.1273 (3 bighas - 4 biswas) situate at Village
Bhaini Surjan, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak. The eviction was sought on
the plea that the owner's share in the crop was to the extent of 1/3rd share
(hissa malik batai tehai) and the same had not been paid with regard to the
crops of khariff, 1997 upto rabi, 2001, despite demand/claim. Accordingly,
it was prayed that the same be got recovered with interest, else the
petitioners herein along with others be evicted.
4.1 The afore-said eviction suit was contested by the
petitioners herein on the plea that the land in dispute was owned by
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085528
Mandir Darbari Lal and the right to recover the share out of crops lies with
the priest of the temple. It was stated that Mahadev had no right to recover
the share or to file the suit. It was further stated that the land in question
was given in Dholi to the temple and they had been paying chakota
@ Rs.13.50 p.a.; accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.
5. The learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Meham decided the
afore-said eviction suit vide its order dated 28.05.2003 (Annexure P-1);
wherein, a reference was made to an order dated 20.11.1989 passed by the
learned Civil Court, holding that the tenancy was by way of crop sharing
i.e. batai tehai and Sh. Mahadev was appointed as the
Mohatmim/administrator of Mandir Darbari Lal. It was further held that
since the petitioner and others did not want to pay the share of crops (batai
tehai), accordingly, their eviction was ordered. The petitioners and others
were further directed to pay 1/3rd share of the crops from Khariff, 1997 upto
Rabi, 2001, amounting to Rs.2,42,810/- i.e. Rs.80,936.60/- p. along with
8% interest.
6. The petitioners herein challenged the afore-said order dated
28.05.2003 (Annexure P-1) by way of an appeal before the learned
Collector, Rohtak, which came to be allowed vide order dated 01.08.2006
(Annexure P-2) holding that there was no relationship of owner and tenant
amongst the parties, accordingly, the order dated 28.05.2003 (Annexure P-
1) was set aside.
7. Being aggrieved against the above-referred order dated
01.08.2006 (Annexure P-2), respondent No.5 (Mandir Darbari Lal) filed an
appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak, which was allowed
vide order dated 14.10.2009 (Annexure P-3); whereby the order dated
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085528
01.08.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Collector was set aside
and the order dated 28.05.2003 (Annexure P-1) was upheld.
8. The present petitioners challenged the order passed by the
learned Divisional Commissioner, by way of a Revision petition before the
learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana; however, the same
was dismissed vide order dated 19.07.2010 (Annexure P-4).
9. In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the petitioners have
filed the instant writ petition before this Court for grant of relief/s, as
noticed above.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned
Financial Commissioner as well as the learned Commissioner, Rohtak, have
erred in law and fact in passing the impugned orders by wrongly placing
reliance upon judgment dated 20.11.1989. It is submitted that the
petitioners had been in possession of the land in question for more than 100
years at fixed yearly rent of Rs.13.50 and they had acquired occupancy
rights therein. It is submitted that the rate of rent of the afore-said land was
not batai tehai as claimed by respondent No.5 (Mandir Darbari Lal) and
said fact was duly appreciated by the learned Collector, who had allowed
the appeal of the petitioners and had set aside the eviction order dated
28.05.2003 (Annexure P-1). It is further submitted that Mahadev had no
right to file the eviction suit and the said issue had not been considered by
the Revenue authorities below. It is stated that according to the sharat-
wajib-ul-arz, only the pujari (priest) of Mandir Darbari Lal was competent
to sue for recovery of rent.
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085528
10.1 With the afore-said submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioners prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned orders
be set aside.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioners by submitting that the issue
as regards the relationship between the parties and also the rent including
the competence of Mahadev to institute proceedings, has already been
decided by the Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.1989
(Annexure R-1), which has been further upheld by the learned District
Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.1991 and also by this Court
vide order dated 21.10.1991 passed in RSA No.2059 of 1991. It is further
submitted that the order passed by this Court in RSA No.2059 of 1991 has
been further upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated
03.08.1992 passed in SLP(C) No.19487 of 1991. It is further submitted that
even the claim of the petitioners, seeking declaration to the effect that they
have acquired occupancy rights in the land in question has been rejected by
the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Meham vide its judgment and
decree dated 13.01.2006; which has been further upheld in appeal vide
judgment and decree dated 23.04.2008 (Annexure R-4) passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak. It is submitted that since the
issues sought to be raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition,
have already been adjudicated upon by the learned Civil Court with specific
findings that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the
parties and that the predecessor-in-interest of Mahadev (and now Mahadev)
was competent to file the suit and further that the petitioners were liable to
pay 1/3rd batai; therefore, there was no scope for any interference in the
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085528
impugned orders passed by the Revenue authorities. Accordingly, prayer
for dismissal of the writ petition has been made.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the paper book with their able assistance.
13. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the predecessor-in-
interest of the petitioners have filed Civil Suit No.82/83 of 1983, wherein
the following claim was made :-
"Claim for:- A suit for declaration to the effect
that the defendant are Dohlidar of land comprised in
khasra no.1272, 1273 measuring 8 bighas 12 biswas
pukhta situated in village Bhaini Chanderpal and the
plaintiffs are in cultivating possession of agri. land since
more than hundred years since the time of their ancestors
on the payment of a fixed rent as chakota of Rs.13.50 p.a.
and are still continuing as tenants on his fixed rent."
14. Concededly, the aforesaid suit filed by the predecessor-in-
interest of the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class,
Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.1989 (Annexure R-1). In
appeal filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, the District
Judge, Rohtak, inter alia, framed the question as to whether the plaintiffs
(the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) were in cultivating
possession of the suit land as gair-marusi on payment of 1/3rd batai or were
in cultivating possession on payment of Rs.13.50 p.a. as fixed chakota.
14.1 After discussing the evidence available on the record, the
learned District Judge, Rohtak, vide its judgment and decree dated
30.07.1991 (Annexure R-2) returned the following findings :-
"15. In view of my detailed discussion above, in
my opinion, no fault could be found with the findings of
the ld. Trial court on issues no.2 and 3, when it was held
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085528
by the ld. Trial court that the entries in the jamabandi for
the year 1951-52 showing Pohlu, father of the plaintiffs,
in cultivating possession of the suit land on payment of
1/3rd batai, were perfectly legal and valid and that the
plaintiffs were now in cultivating possession of the suit
land on payment of 1/3rd batai. Accordingly, I affirm the
findings of the ld. Trial Court on issue no.2 and 3."
15. A perusal of the above extracted finding would clearly show
that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and
the petitioners had been cultivating the suit land on payment of 1/3rd batai.
Concededly, the afore-said findings have been upheld by this Court vide
order dated 21.10.1991 passed in RSA No.2059-1991 and even the SLP
filed against the afore-said judgment was dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 03.08.1992 (Annexure R-3).
16. Further, a perusal of the order sheets of this writ petition would
indicate that since the matter was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
accordingly, the learned counsel representing the petitioners made a
statement before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 29.05.2012 that the
matter raised in this writ petition has already been decided by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and it may not be possible for a fresh consideration.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. It transpires that
subsequently, on a review application being made by the petitioners, the
order dated 29.05.2012 was recalled and the matter was admitted for
regular hearing, however, the stay which was initially granted in the writ
petition was vacated.
17. That apart, even the claim of the predecessor-in-interest of the
petitioners, seeking declaration to the effect that they had acquired
occupancy rights in the suit land, came to be dismissed by the learned Civil
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085528
Judge (Junior Division), Meham, vide its judgment and decree dated
13.01.2006, which was further upheld vide judgment and decree dated
23.04.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak.
18. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has been unable
to controvert the afore-said factual position, especially the findings returned
by the learned Civil Court as regards the relationship between the parties
and also in respect of rent, which has been held to be 1/3rd batai. It needs no
reiteration that the findings returned by the learned Civil Court are binding
upon the Revenue authorities.
19. In view of the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances, I do
not find any merit in the present writ petition(s) and the same are
accordingly dismissed.
20. All pending application/s, if any, shall also stand closed.
July 03, 2024 (HARSH BUNGER)
gurpreet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
