Kewal Singh vs Financial Commissioner and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—Punjab Wakf Board filed a petition seeking the eviction of Kewal Singh and Pal Singh from land measuring 8 Kanals 15 Marias on the ground that they had not paid the rent since 1972-73. Despite the grant of 8 opportunities, no reply was filed. Vide order dated 9.4.1996, the Assistant Collector accepted the petition and ordered the eviction of Kewal Singh, the present petitioner, and Pal Singh, respondent No. 6. Aggrieved by the order, they filed the appeal before the Collector. It was dismissed vide order dated 23.10.1996. The Petitioner and respondent No. 6 filed a revision before the Commissioner. It was dismissed vide order dated 2.9.1997. The second revision was filed before the Financial Commissioner, which was rejected vide order dated 3.6.1999. Copies of the four orders have been produced as An-nexures P-5 to P-8. The petitioner prays that these orders be quashed.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Mr. Satinder Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the land in dispute is described as Gair Mumkin in the revenue record. Thus, it could not be treated as land and the petitioner could not be ordered to be evicted on the mere ground of non-payment of rent. Secondly, it has been contended that the petition filed by the Punjab Wakf Board should have been before the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, appearing for respondent No. 5 Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur counsel for respondent No. 6, has, however, supported the claim of the petitioner. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 despite service.

Admittedly the petitioner has not paid a penny for the period from 1973-74 to 1995-96. Still further, it is the petitioner and respondent No. 6 to file a reply to the petition presented by the 5th respondent. Despite the grant of 8 opportunities, no reply was filed. Thus, the claim as made in the petition stood admitted. It is, thus,clear that the petitioner and respondent No. 6 have remained in possession of a sizeable are of land measuring 8 kanais 15 marlas for a period of 27 years without paying anything. Should the High Court still interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Mr. Khanna submits that the impugned orders are wholly without jurisdiction. The property in dispute does not fall within the definition of land as contained in the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and the authorities were not competent to decide the matter.

In a suitable case, we may be inclined to examine the questions as raised in this petition. However, so far as the present case is concerned, there is no equity in favour of the petitioner. The objections now sought to be raised were never raised before the authorities concerned. If the questions had been raised were not urged before the competent authorities, we are not inclined to allow the petitioner to these questions for the first time in proceedings under Articles 226 of the Constitution.

Mr. Satinder Khanna has referred to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ajmer Singh and Ors. v. State of and Ors. 1990 P.L.J. 116. The factual position in this case was totally different. The issue before the Court was whether Banjar land could be included in the total area of the landowner while computing the permissible holding. Such is not the position in the present case.

Keeping in view of fact that the petitioner, on his own showing, has not paid a penny to the owner of the land for the last 27 years, we find no equity in his favour so as to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction to grant any relief.

No other point has been urged.

In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition which is, consequently dismissed with costs. The costs are assessed at Rs. 2,000/-.

Sd/- N.K. Sud, J.