Ajit Singh Bains, J. - (1.) CHAMAN Lal Bhutani, petitioner, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 1st May, 1973 (Annexure 'E' to the petition of the Financial Commissioner, respondent No. 1, by which the reference made by the Commissioner, respondent No. 2, granting relief to the petitioner against forfeiture of tenancy for non payment of rent, was rejected,
(2.) THE facts of the case are not disputed and the same are briefly stated as under. The land in disputed scribed in paragraph 2 of the petition is owned by respondents Nos. 5 to 9. Smt. Umrao Begum and others were the tenants in land by means of a pattanama executed on October 18, 1970 on the basis of which the said land was leased out to the tenants in perpetuity. The tenants, however, were liable to pay rent to the landlord at the rate of Rs. 100/ - per annum and in default of payment of rent for three years, the tenants were liable to be evicted. It is alleged that the petitioner never knew about the fact that respondents Nos. 5 to 9 are the real owners and that Umrao Begum and others were the tenants in the land in question. The Muslim tenants, it is averred, migrated to Pakistan, and then the properly became the evacuee property which was acquired by the Central Government. Thereafter the proprietary rights in the land were sold to the petitioner by the Managing Officer and thus the possession of the land in dispute was transferred to the petitioner provisionally from June 16, 1958. The landlords, respondents 5 to 9, filed a suit in the Court of he Assistant Collector for eviction of the petitioner on three grounds : (i) non -payment of rent (ii) use of the land by the petitioner in such a way that its value had deteriorated, and (iii) subletting of the land in question The suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector and in consequence he directed the eviction of the petitioner vide his order dated June 12, 1970 (Annexure 'B' to the petition). Aggrieved by abovesaid order of the Assistant Director, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, which was also dismissed vide his order dated April 12, 1971 (Annexure 'C' to the petition) Dissatisfied with the order of the Collector, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, who vide his order dated 26th December, 1971 (Annexure 'D' to the petition) recommended this case to the Financial Commissioner for the acceptance of the petition The learned Financial Commissioner, after hearing the parties, refused to accent the reference and dismissed the revision petition and directed the Collector to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act vide his order dated May 1, 1971 (Annexure 'E' to the petition). It is against the order of the learned Financial Commissioner and also that of the Collector and Assistant Collector that the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
(3.) MR . R.L. Aggarwal, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the respondents were bound to consider the equitable principle of section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act as also section 48 of the Punjab Tenancy Act to grant relief to the petitioner against forfeiture for non -payment of rent and, therefore, the impugned orders of the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Financial Commissioner are bad in law as they hive not considered the case from that aspect. I find no merit in the contention advanced by Mr. Aggarwal, Learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is on the record that in execution of the decree passed by the Assistant Collector and confirmed by the Collector, the possession of the land was delivered to the respondents on July 23, 1971 Another important factor, which has cropped up in the present petition, is that the land in dispute has been acquired by the State Government under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Notification No. LAC -/3 -NTLA/2995, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on October 1, 1973, and was published in Haryana Government Gazette on October 9, 1973, The compensation on the laid was assessed on February '2, 1974 and the possession taken over by the Collector, Land Acquisition, on the same date. These facts are not disputed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Hence the land in dispute now vests in the State of Haryana. Neither respondent No. 5 to 9 nor the petitioner are its owners and so the relationship of landlords and tenant no longer exists between them any relief is granted under section 114 of he Transfer of Property Act or under section 48 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, it would only mean an exercise in futility as the land in dispute is no longer with the landlords as the proprietary rights of the land in dispute already vest in the State Government. Mr. Aggarwal, in support of this contention, has relied upon the authority of this Court reported as Sat Narain and others v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab, 1971 PLJ 368. I am bound by the abovesaid authority, but in view of the changed circumstances of this case, no relief can be granted, in a some what similar situation Mr. Justice R.S. Sarkaria (as his Lordship then was) In Civil Writ No. 1146 of 1966 re : Mhant Bikram Dass Chela Mahant Lachhman Dass v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab CW 1146 of 1966, decided on November 27, 1970 has observed as under : - - Obviously, no decree for ejectment could be passed on the date of the impugned order by the Financial Commissioner dated 4th November, 1965), because the rights of both the tenants and the landlord hid came to in end as a result of acquisition of the land by the Improvement Trust. On this short ground I would dismiss the petition. In this case when the proceedings were pending before the Financial Commissioner, the land had been acquired by the improvement Trust and the learned Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision petition as infructuous on the ground that the land had been required by the Amritsar Improvement Trust and the possession had also been taken be the Trust and that the respondents were no longer tenants and thus the question of their ejectment did not arise. The petitioner in that case had challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner which was dismissed by Mr. Justice R.S. Sarkaria. No other point has been urged. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed but there will be no orders as to costs.;