Gursharan Singh vs Bhajan Lal

N. Khosla,F.C.

This is a revision petition against an order dated 16th February, 1976 of the Commissioner, Jullundur Division.

Gursharan Singh, etc., of village Mulo Chak, tehsil Amritsar filed an application in Form K1 for the ejectment of Bhajan Lal, etc., on the ground that they (applicants) were small landowners. After recording the evidence of the parties, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Amritsar by his order dated 26th February, 1971 ejected Bhajan Lal, etc., from 21 Kanals 16 Marlas comprising Killa Nos. 510, 511, 512 subject to payment of Rs. 1000/ as compensation for the garden which had been planted on the land. Bhajan Lal, etc. appealed before the Collector, Amritsar who partially accepted the appeal and ordered on 30th July, 1971 that Rs. 5500/ be paid to them as compensation. Thereafter Bhajan Lal went in appeal before the Commissioner who accepted the appeal and set aside the orders of lower Courts by his order dated 16th February, 1976. Hence the present revision petition by Gursharan Singh etc.

Counsel for the petitioners argues that the learned Commissioner has overlooked the fact that liability regarding ejectment was clearly admitted before the Collector and the only dispute left was regarding the amount of compensation ; that the ruling reported as Prithu and another v. The Financial Commissioner (T), Punjab and others, 1975 P.L.J. 29, is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of this case ; that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade gave detailed and valid reasons for the noninclusion of 159 Kanals and 8 Marlas in Form K1 which was purely due to oversight, and that the learned Commissioner has ignored the fact that even if this area be added to the ownership of the petitioners, they still remain small landowners. Counsel for respondents has stated that petitioners have not come up with clean handa; they did not file the application in Form K1 properly and it deserves to be dismissed in the light of the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Prithu and another v. The Financial Commissioner (T), Punjab and others, 1975 P.L.J. 29.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. I do not find anything to support the view that the petitioners failed to show the land of village Wadala Whitewind withsome unclean motive. This comprises of 137 Kanals and 7 Marlas of `Banjar Qadim'' and `Banjar Jadid'' and remaining 31 Kanals are `Barani''. Even if this land is clubbed with the total holdings of landowners, they still remain small landowners. The judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Prithu and another v. The Financial Commissioner (T), Punjab and others, (supra) on the basis of which learned Commissioner has accepted the appeal, does not come into play in this case. In that case it was not clear whether the landowner was a big or a small landowner, whereas there is no dispute on this point in the present case. Bhajan Lal, etc., tenants have rightly been ejected by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. Compensation is the only question which is yet to be decided by the Commissioner. It was averred that Bhajan Lal, etc., have large parcels of land under their cultivation and this was not denied.

In view of the foregoing discussion, I accept the revision petition, set aside the order of Commissioner and remand the case to him to decide the question of compensation only. The parties have been directed to appear before him on 28th September, 1978.

Announced.