- (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 16.05.2003(Annexure P-9) passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurdaspur; 20.12.2004 (Annexure P-10) passed by Collector Gurdaspur; order dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and order dated 07.12.2011 (Annexure P-14) passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, whereby petitioners No.1 to 5 and respondent Nos.6 to 14 have been ordered to be evicted under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (henceforth to be referred as 'the Act').
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1902 Sh. Gurdit Singh(predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) son of Santa Singh resident of village Mahadev Khurd, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur gave the land in dispute measuring 77 kanal 12 marla, situated in the said village to Mahant Lachman Dass for maintenance of Dharamshala, but the ownership of the land in question remained with Gurdit Singh. Now the petitioners are successors-in-interest of said Gurdit Singh. The land in the revenue record in ownership column is in the name of successors-ininterest of said Gurdit Singh. In the year 1902 the Deputy Commissioner exempted the land from payment of land revenue (muafi). Subsequently vide notification dated 01.06.1922, the maintenance of the Dharamshala was given to Lachman Dass. By another order dated 19.12.1927 for maintenance of Guruduwara, the managing committee of the Guruduwara came into possession but the ownership remained in the name of Gurdit Singh. After his death the mutation of inheritance has been sanctioned in the name of the petitioners and some of the private respondents No.6 to 14. The Gurudwara continued to remain in possession of the land in question and the same was shown in the cultivation column in the Jamabandi up to 1963. The land in question was being cultivated through various persons. It is alleged that subsequently successors of the Gurdit Singh entered into possession over the land in question in their own right as owners of the land and the rent column i.e. Column No.9 in the Jamabandi is blank. Petitioners, therefore, claim that they are not tenant of anybody and are in possession of land independently and individually in their own right and not as tenant as is clear from Jamabandi for the year 1973-74. Same is the position in the subsequent Jamabandis for the years 1978-79 & 1983-84. It is further averred in the writ petition that Muafi (exemption from deposit of land revenue) was up to December, 1927. It is submitted that a tenant can be dispossessed in accordance with the due procedure of law. He is required to file a suit within one year from the date of his dispossession before the revenue Court under Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and suit for restoration of the possession before the revenue authorities can be filed within one year. Thereafter remedy before the revenue authorities is barred and parties have to approach the civil Court. In the instant case the Gurudwara Managing Committee did not approach the civil court rather had filed an application in Forum J of the Act & Rule. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade allowed the application of the Gurudwara Managing committee vide order dated 16.05.2003 (Annexure P-9). The Collector dismissed the appeal of the petitioners vide order dated 20.12.2004 (Annexure P-10). The revision filed by the petitioners stands dismissed vide order dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Commissioner and further revision before the Financial Commissioner has been dismissed vide order dated 7.12.2011 (Annexure P-14). Hence, the instant writ petition.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for caveator-respondent No.5 and perused the record. Mr. R.D. Bawa, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that their predecessor-in-interest Gurdit Singh had given the land for religious purpose for a limited period and the land revenue of the land in question was exempted by the Deputy Commissioner till 1927. In the year 1973-74, the petitioners have become owners in possession of the land in question in their own right and they are not tenants of the respondent-Gurudwara Managing Committee. As such they cannot be evicted by the revenue authorities since they are in possession of land for more than 38 years. In view of Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, if possession is retained by an owner then suit before the revenue courts can be filed within one year and the present application for eviction is barred under Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.;