Decided on April 30,1991

ROSHAN LAL Appellant


D.P.SOOD,J - (1.) By this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the quashing of judgments Annexures PA, PB and PC (there being no such Annexure PB on record), dated 10 -7 -1968 and 12 -12 -1978, of the Collector Kangra and Financial Commissioner, H. P respectively.
(2.) The bone of contention between the parties is the tenancy interest of the petitioner in the land measuring 78 -18 kanals contained in khasra Nos 3 to 6, 8, 15 to 19, 27, to 33, 35, 39, 71, 74, 75, 80 and 83 suitable in Tika Chhola Khurd Tappa Bajuri Tehsil Hamirpur (hereinafter shortly referred to as the disputed land).
(3.) Shri Krishan Dayal and others were the previous land -owners and petitioner Roshan Lal was a non -occupancy tenant under them. The present respondents purchased the land in dispute from the previous owners in June, 1967. After the alienation thereof, the previous landowners filed an application under section 14 -A (i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 on 20 -11 -1967 for the recovery of rent amounting to Rs. 421.33 from the petitioner in respect of two harvests, that is, kharif 1966 and Rabi 1967 before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Hamirpur. Immediately thereafter the present respondents also filed a similar application for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 181.84 for kharif 1967 on 18 -12 -1967 before the same authority. The petitioner deposited the rent in the Court of the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade aforesaid under protest, alleging that the previous landowners wanted to dispose of the land and thus did not receive the rent nor they were prepared to give a receipt in token of its payment Subsequently the respondents also filed another application in the Court of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hamirpur under section 14 -A (i) of the aforesaid Act on 6 -2 -1968 seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed land on the grounds, firstly that the tenant had been a constant defaulter in payment of rent without sufficient cause, secondly that he had not been cultivating the land in a manner customary in the locality and thirdly that a portion of the land had been sub -let by him to some other person. After framing the issues and appraising the evidence adduced by both the parties, the Assistant Collector passed the ejectment order on 23 -4 -1968 consequent to which the petitioner was ejected on the following day.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.