- (1.) This petition has arisen out of the surplus area proceedings of Gopal Singh. The facts of the case are as under.
(2.) The original landowner Natha Singh died before partition. He left behind Gopal Singh and a widow of his predeceased son Kartar Singh. The widow of Natha singh's predeceased son Kartar Singh is the present petitioner. The whole land was inherited by Gopal Singh after the death of Natha Singh, his father before partition. No objection was ever taken by the petitioner against this inheritance. Some time in the year 1964, the petitioner brought a declaratory suit that she is the owner in possession of the half land measuring 273 Kanals 12 Marlas, which was decreed on 5.2.1964. Copy of the decision is attached with the petition as Annexure 'A'. It is alleged in Para 5 of the petition that the land in dispute was shown in the revenue papers under the ownership of Gopal Singh. Some land of Gopal Singh was declared as surplus on 31.12.1959 before the Civil Court decree. After the declaration of the surplus area, respondent Nos. 5 to 13 were allotted the surplus land under the Utilization Scheme as tenants and the physical possession was also transferred on 14th December, 1963 vide Roznamcha entry No. 114. The petitioner got respondents 5 to 13 dispossessed from the land in dispute on 10.6.1964 in execution of the civil Court decree. After that the tenants respondents 5 to 13, brought a suit for possession under Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 against the petitioner on the ground that they had been wrongly dispossessed from the land, in dispute. This suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector per order dated 24.5.1967 (Annexure 'B'). Dissatisfied by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector. This appeal was also dismissed on 20.11.1967 (Annexure 'C'). Against this order of the Collector, the petitioner filed a revision petition, which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.3.1968 (Annexure 'D'), of the Additional Commissioner. Against this order also, a further revision petition was filed before the Financial Commissioner, which also met with the same fate, vide order dated 26.3.1968 (Annexure 'E'). It is against these orders (Annexures 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E') passed by the Assistant Collector, Collector, Additional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner respectively that the present petition has been filed.
(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel is that since there is no relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties, the respondents', 1, 2, 3 and 4 had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders. Hence the orders are illegal, without jurisdiction and null and void under the provisions of Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Section 50 of this Act is in the following terms :- "50. Relief for wrongful dispossession or ejectment. - In either of the following cases, namely - (a) if a tenant has been dispossessed without his consent of his tenancy or any part thereof otherwise than in execution of a decree or than in pursuance of an order under Section 44 or Section 45. (b) if a tenant who, not having instituted a suit under Section 45, has been ejected from his tenancy or any part thereof in pursuance of an order under that Section denies his liability to be ejected, the tenant may, within one year from the date of his dispossession or ejectment, institute a suit for recovery of possession or occupancy or for compensation, or for both." The reading of this Section shows that the Revenue Authorities are competent only to try the suits between the tenant and the landowner. Since the relationship of landowner and tenant is not proved, the Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to go into the matter. Hence I hold that the Assistant Collector, Collector, Additional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner have no jurisdiction to decide the matter in the present case. Such a matter can only be agitated in a civil Court. Consequently, the impugned orders, Annexures 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E' are quashed and the petition is allowed.;