Mohan Lal . vs Surain Singh .

A. S. Pooni, IAS.

These are six revision petitions against the orders dated 7.9.1988 of Commissioner Ferozepur Division. Since the facts of these cases are interconnected, these are disposed of with one order, a copy of which shall be placed in each of the files.

The facts briefly are that on 10.2.1982 Tikka Harish Singh and Kanwar Naresh Singh sons of Guru Atamjit Singh, residents of Guru Harsahai filed two applications in form ''M'' in the Court of A.C. second grade Ferozepur for recovery of rent from Munshi Singh etc. sons of Hakam Singh in respect of land measuring 30 kanal 19 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. and from Surain Singh s/o Mehtab Singh in respect of land measuring 30 kanals 16 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. all situated in village Marre Khurd. The A.C. second grade Ferozepur vide two orders dated 5.8.1982 held Munshi Singh and Khushia Singh to be defaulters and ordered their ejectment from the disputed land. The appeals filed by the two tenants were ejected by the Collector vide two separate orders dated 12.10.1982. The revisions, filed by the tenants were recommended by the Commissioner Ferozepur Division to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab who vide orders dated 7.11.1985 accepted the references and set aside the orders dated 5.8.1982 of the A.C. second grade Ferozepur and remanded the cases to him for fresh decision. Consequent to the orders dated 5.8.1982 the landowners had taken possession of the lands from which the two tenants had been ejected. The tenants now filed applications before the AC IInd Grade for restoration of possession. The Collector vide orders dated 8.4.1986 ordered the restoration of the possession to the tenants. During the pendency of the ejectment proceedings, the landowners had sold the land in dispute to the present petitioners. The vendees filed six appeals before the Collector Ferozepur pleading that they were in possession of the land as owners and had not been impleaded in the restitution of possession proceedings. The appeals were accepted by the Collector who directed the AC IInd Grade to implead them as necessary parties. The A.C. IInd Grade heard the parties and vide order dated 19.3.1987 ordered the restoration of possession to Surain Singh and to Rulia Singh etc. the successors in next of Munshi Singhtenant. The appeals and revisions filed by the vendees have been dismissed and they have come up in revision.

I have heard Sh. A. K. Chopra for the petitioners and Sh. S. C. Chhabra, Advocate, on behalf of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are vendees from Harish Singh etc. and have purchased the land in good faith and for valuable consideration. They were not a party to the proceedings in form ''M'' and have even no knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings. The petitioners cannot, therefore, be asked to part with their possession on the basis of orders in proceedings with which they were not associated. The learned counsel has contended that the record of these proceedings should be requisitioned with a view to see the reasons for which the Learned Financial Commissioner remanded the cases to the A.C. IInd Grade. The learned counsel contends that since, 1985 when the cases were remanded, there is nothing on record to show as to what happened to the applications for ejectment. It is further pointed out that even in the proceedings for restoration in possession no evidence was produced and the petitioners are being asked to part with the possession of land which they have purchased and occupied through a perfectly legal transaction.

I have carefully considered the plea of the learned counsel and have gone through the record of the cases. In so far as the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners for requisition the record of the ejectment proceedings is concerned, I see no force in it. The fact that an application in Form ''M'' were filed and tenants ejected vide orders dated 5.8.1982 is not disputed. Similarly it is not disputed that resultant to the orders dated 5.8.1982 the tenants were evicted from the land and the possession thereof was taken by the landowners. It is also not disputed that the order dated 5.8.1982 was quashed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab vide order dated 7.11.1985. A copy of the order of the Learned Financial Commissioner is available on the record of each case and it clearly shows that the cases were remanded for fresh decision after allowing an opportunity to the tenants to produce their evidence. It is also admitted on both sides that the land in dispute was sold by the landowners during the pendency of the proceedings. It follows from this sequence of events that the tenants were deprived of their possession on the basis of an order, which has been quashed in revision proceedings and there is no subsisting order of eviction against the tenants. They are, therefore, entitled to restoration of possession. The record of the A.C. IInd Grade reveals that the restoration proceedings were initiated on receipt of proper application from the evicted tenants. Thus the total record of the eviction proceedings is not necessary. In so far as limited proceedings for restoration of possession are concerned, having stepped into the shoes of the landowners by virtue of the purchase of the land, the petitioners have succeeded to all the rights and liabilities of the vendors. They cannot gave any rights over and above, those of the transferers. They had a right of being impleaded in the restoration proceedings and this right has been duly exercised by them before the subordinate revenue officers. As successorsininterest of the vendors, the petitioners should settle their claims, if any, qua the tenants, by due process of law. I see, no merit in the present revision petitions which are dismissed.