Paramjeet Singh, J. - (1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 26.03.2013 (Annexure P -12) passed by respondent No. 1 -Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are to the effect that the petitioners claim themselves to be tenants as gair marusi over the disputed land measuring 260 kanals 1 marla. The father of petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and predecessors -in -interest of petitioner Nos. 8 to 10, namely, Deshraj, petitioner No. 5 -Bhalle Ram, petitioner No. 6 -Hari Ram @ Hari Singh and father of petitioner No. 7 namely Dhan Singh filed a suit for declaration of occupancy rights under Ss. 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 in respect of land measuring 260 kanals 1 marla comprised in khewat No. 15 khatauni No. 20 killa No. 5/21 (3 -14), 6//24/2 (7 -4), 25(8 -0), 16//5/1(4 -0), 29/22 (6 -1), 32//17/2 (4 -0), 24(8 -0), 25(8 - 0), 33/1(8 -0), 2(8 -0), 3(8 -0), 4(8 -0), 5(8 -0), 6(8 -0), 7(8 -0), 9(8 -0), 10(8 - 0), 11(8 -0), 12(8 -0), 13(8 -0), 33/14(8 -0), 15(8 -0), 16(8 -0), 17(8 -0), 19(8 - 0), 20(8 -0), 21(8 -0), 23(8 -0), 24(8 -0), 33/25(8 -0), 34//10(7 -8), 11/1(3 - 14). In the said suit, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte and ex parte decree was passed on 02.06.1979. After 21 years of passing of the said decree, the defendants filed application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 02.06.1979 (Annexure P -4). The said application was dismissed vide order dated 28.02.2006 (Annexure P -7). A relevant extract of the order dated 28.02.2006 (Annexure P -7) reads as under: "File put up today. Counsels for the parties present. Heard. In view of the judgment dated 29.05.2004 of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Full Bench) in Civil Writ Petition No. 5266 of 1999, titled as 'Shiv Charan vs. F.C. Haryana and others' which has been published in PLR 2004 -03, Vol. CXXXXVIII Page 569, this Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit for occupancy rights. As such, the present application also cannot be heard by this Court for want of jurisdiction. Hence, the present application is returned to the applicants for presentation in the competent court having jurisdiction. Case be consigned to the record -room after due compliance".
(3.) Feeling aggrieved, respondent Nos. 5 to 8 preferred an appeal before the Collector, Hisar, who dismissed the said appeal vide impugned order dated 10.06.2008 (Annexure P -8). A relevant extract of the order dated 10.06.2008 reads as under: "The learned counsel for the respondents stated in his argument that as per the order dated 29.05.2004 passed by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP -5266 of 1999 (PCR 2004) Vol. XXXXVIII Page 569, Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to hear the cases of Occupancy Tenant. There is no illegality in the order under appeal passed by the lower courts. Therefore, the present appeal may be rejected. I have heard the arguments in detail of the counsel of both the parties. As per the order dated 29.05.2004 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 5266 of 1999 (PCR 2004) Vol. XXXXVIII Page 569, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to decide the cases of rights of occupancy tenants. Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to hear the cases of rights of occupancy tenants. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order dated 28.02.2006 passed by the lower court and hence the present appeal is rejected. File be consigned to the record -room.";