BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. BHAGWANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed against the orders of the Commissioner Hisar Division dated 29.3.96. Facts of the case are that Bhagwan Singh (the present petitioner-landowner) filed a petition for ejectment of the respondent-tenant Bhagwana from the land in dispute, on Form K-1 (as a small landowner), K-2 (against a tenant on his permissible area) and Form 'L' (on account of non-payment of rent). The A.C. I however considered his application only on Form K-1 and dismissed his application vide orders dated 12.1.94. On appeal against the above orders the Collector on 30.8.95 reached the finding that for deciding the ejectment matter it was essential that the status of the appellant landowner be first determined as to whether he is a small landowner or a big landowner. On that basis he remanded the case back to A.C. I. On further appeal the Commissioner vide order dated 29.3.96 decided that proceedings on K-1 are not maintainable as the predecessor of the petitioner landowner was a big landowner under the old Act. The Commissioner also made certain other observations and set aside the orders of the Collector. This revision petition has been filed against the orders of the Commissioner dated 29.3.96.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the two parties and have considered the facts of the case. It is undisputed that the revision petitioner Bhagwan Singh was a big landowner under the old Act and 5.48 Standard Acres of his land had been declared surplus vide orders of Collector dated 6.2.60. This order of 6.2.60 does not find mention in A.C. I's order but the same does find a mention in the Collector's orders dated 30.8.95. The counsel for the revision petitioner has averred that the revision petitioner had 5 grown up sons in 1971 and therefore under the new Act he would be a small landowner. Further, the concerned khasra No. in dispute namely Killa No. 25, Khasra No. 3/2, measuring 5 kanals 0 maria, does not find mention in the list of area declared surplus vide orders dated 6.2.60. On the above basis he prayed that the respondent- tenant should be ejected from the land in dispute.

(3.) AS mentioned earlier, admittedly, the revision petitioner was a big landowner under the old Act. Though he says that he had 5 grown up sons in 1971, I am of the view that he must prove his status under the new Act before he can claim ejectment of a tenant as a small landowner. It may only be added that the permissible area norms under the old Act and the new Act are different. In that view of the matter, the Collector has correctly reached the finding that it was very important in this case to have the status of the revision petitioner settled. I, therefore, set aside the orders of the Commissioner Hisar Division dated 29.3.96 and remand this case back to the Collector Hisar with the direction that the status of the petitioner-landowner should be first got determined from the appropriate authority and till that is done, the proceedings on this ejectment case shall remain adjourned sine die. Petition accepted.