V.K. Bali, J. - (1.) THE marathon litigation between landowner and tenants has already consumed 28 years. A brief resume of the facts, spanned over past more than two and half decade, would need a necessary mention.
(2.) AN application on Form "L" under Section 14 -A(i) of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (No. 10 of 1953) (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1953') came to be instituted against the tenant Mam Raj pertaining to and measuring 17 Kanals 16 Marlas in village Sarala, Tehsil Palwal on the sole ground that tenant had not paid the rent of the land for the period from Kharif 1968 to Rabi 1973 without any sufficient cause. The Assistant Collector vide his order dated 28.2.1975 directed dispossession of the tenant, holding that he had not paid the rent for the period from Kharif 1968 to Rabi 1972 without any sufficient cause. Constrained Mam Raj carried an appeal against the order of learned Assistant Collector, which was dismissed by the Collector on 31.3.1976. Still aggrieved revision came to be filed before the learned Commissioner but with no success as the same was dismissed vide order dated 5.12.1976. In the second revision that came to be filed against the order aforesaid before the learned Assistant Collector, the fate of the panics fluctuated as vide order dated 22.2.1980 the learned Assistant Collector set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Collector and Commissioner respectively and dismissed the application filed by the landowner for eviction of tenant on the ground of non -payment of rent by primarily holding that land has since been declared surplus and by virtue of provisions contained in the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 the same had vested with the State . Application for eviction of the tenants was held to be wholly incompetent as the landowner was divested of all rights, title and interest in the land subject matter of dispute. The landowner successfully agitated against order passed by learned Assistant Collector dated 22.2.1980 before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3178 of 1980 and the same was allowed vide order dated 15.3.1991. By the order aforesaid learned Single Judge decided two connected writ petitions bearing No. 3177 of 1980 and 3178 of 1980 as common question of law and fact were involved in both the petitions. It requires to be mentioned here that landowner had two tenants on two different parcels of land and had sought eviction of both of them on non -payment of rent without any sufficient cause and it is for that precise reason that all through the matter was decided by a common judgment rendered in both the cases. We propose to do like wise.
(3.) IN the context of the controversy that has been raised in the present appeal filed by the tenants against the order passed by learned Single Judge referred to above, the facts that need notice would reveal that one Baljit Singh was a big landowner in terms of his holding in view of the provisions contained in the Act of 1953. He owned 60 Acres 18 Marlas of land situated in village Lohsinghani, Tehsil Gurgaon. He was also owner of the one -half share of 211 Kanals situated in village Sarala, Tehsil Palwal as also owner of one -third share of the lad measuring 390 Kanals 10 Marlas situated in village Kabulpur, Tehsil Ballabgarh on 15.4.1953, when the Act of 1953 came into force. Vide order dated 20.3.1963, Collector (Surplus) declared whole of his land situated in village Lohsinghani and Sarala and 55 Kanals of land situated in village Kabulpur as surplus. This order was challenged by Baljit Singh in an appeal that was dismissed on 6.11.1962. The revision carried against the order aforesaid was dismissed by the learned Assistant Collector on 31.10.1963. Baljit Singh then tried his luck by filing an review application against the aforesaid order, which too did not find favour and was consequently dismissed on 25.1.1965. Baljit Singh then filed a civil writ petition against order dated 25.1.1965, which also did not find favour as the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 6.2.1970. After two years when Baljit Singh had lost his cause before the Authorities constituted under The Act of 1953 as also High Court, he filed a civil suit challenging the orders declaring his land to be surplus without arraying tenants as party to the suit and was successful in obtaining a decree in his favour vide which orders declaring his land to be surplus were set aside. State of Haryana unsuccessfully carried appeals against the judgment and decree recorded by the Civil Court and that of the District Judge. It is quite apparent from the records of the case that whereas Assistant Collector and Commissioner determined the controversy based upon the judgment of Civil Court holding that the orders passed by the Authorities constituted under the Act of 1953 pertaining to surplus area of the landowner, were illegal, learned Financial Commissioner, who, as mentioned above, decided the matter in favour of tenants, ignored the said judgment on variety of grounds. The core controversy in the present case, thus, centres around the binding nature of judgment and decree of Civil Court in light of the fact that tenants were not arrayed as party -respondents in the said case.;