- (1.) The short controversy that has been raised in this writ petition is as to whether respondent Nos. 7 to 13 are the landowners vis-a-vis the petitioner-tenant and on that account how far the order, Annexure P.1, passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ferozepur, on April 25, 1961, ordering the ejectment of the petitioner is legal ? To provide the necessary background of the case the following facts deserve to be noticed :
(2.) The petitioner, who was admittedly in cultivating possession of 89 Kanals and 12 Marlas of land as a tenant under respondent Nos. 7 to 13 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents), was sought to be ejected under Section 9(1)(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for that purpose an application was filed by the respondents in the Court of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ferozepur. In the application the respondents had alleged themselves to be 'small landowners competent to eject the tenant-petitioner'. Though the petitioner did not controvert this stand of the respondents in reply to their application under Section 9(1)(i) of the Act, yet at the time of final arguments in the case he did raise a plea that the present respondents though were his landlords, but since they were not landowners, they were not entitled to eject him under the above referred to provision of law. This aspect of the matter has been concluded by the Assistant Collector in his impugned order Annexure P.1 in the following words :- "Secondly, it has been urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that the applicants are not landowners. I find that this objection was not taken by the respondent in his written statement. This is a question of fact and law. Actually all land in Cantonment is recorded in revenue record as the ownership of the Central Government and all persons, who own land in Cantonment, are shown as occupiers in column "Kashat", because all persons hold land in Cantonment as free grantees. The applicants are occupancy grantees of the land like all other private individuals, who own land in Cantonment, are landowners." This order of the Assistant Collector was not assailed by the petitioner in any appeal or revision and thus it became final. After a lapse of about 12 years when the present respondents sought to execute the order Annexure P.1 and thereby prayed for the eviction of the petitioner, he filed the present petition assailing the order Annexure P.1, primarily on the ground that the present respondents are, though his landlord, yet they are not the landowners and, therefore, they are not entitled to eject him. He has also styled the impugned order, Annexure P.1, as an order without jurisdiction, void and non est.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I do not find any substance in the plea of the petitioner. The definition of 'landowner' as given in the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, is in the following words :- "Landowner' means a person defined as such in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Act XVII of 1887), and shall include an "allottee" and "lessee" as defined in clauses (b) and (c) respectively of Section 2 of the East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Act, 1949 (Act XXXVI of 1949), hereinafter referred to as the "Resettlement Act"." In the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the term 'landowner' is defined as follows :- " 'Landowner' does not include a tenant or an assignee of land-revenue, but does include a person to whom a holding has been transferred, or an estate or holding has been let in farm under this Act for the recovery of an arrear of land-revenue or of a sum recoverable as such an arrear and every other person not herein-before in this clause mentioned who is in possession of an estate or any share or portion thereof, or in the enjoyment of any part of the profits of an estate." It needs to be mentioned here that according to the stand of the respondents (petitioners in the ejectment application) they have all through been the grantees of the land in question which is situated within the Cantonment area of Ferozepur, from the Central Government and were enjoying the said land and were in its possession in that capacity when they leased it out to the petitioner. It is, therefore, apparent from the last part of the definition of the 'landowner' as given in the Punjab Land Revenue Act and as adopted by the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act that a person who is in possession of an estate or any share or portion thereof, or in enjoyment of any part of the profits of an estate, is or at least falls in the definition of 'landowner'. The respondents have stated in categorical terms in their return that the land in question was a permanent grant made under the Cantonment Code of 1899 without any payment of any kind whatsoever to their ancestors and they were in possession and in the enjoyment of the profits of this estate. Though the petitioner in his petition has alleged that the Jamabandi for the year 1955-1956, the respondents have only been shown in occupation of the land in the column of cultivation and the Central Government has been recorded to be the owner of this land in the column of ownership, yet he has not produced any such copy of the revenue record in support of his stand. Anyhow the matter in controversy being purely a dispute on facts and in the light of the clearcut finding recorded by the Assistant Collector in his order, Annexure P.1 that the respondents were the landowners qua the petitioner and were thus entitled to eject him. I decline to go into that controversy any further in the exercise of my extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order Annexure P.1 thus cannot be said to suffer from any lack of jurisdiction and cannot be held to be void or non est.;