2017(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2799 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1463



Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

CWP-15154 of 2015

Balwant Singh & Anr.


Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab & Ors.

Decided on 31/07/2017

For the Petitioner:             Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate.

Mr.Sourav Khurana, DAG, Punjab For the Respondent:       Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate.

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, Rule 22–Eviction–Non-payment of rentDenial of relationshipAs per jamabandi petitioners were landowners and respondent were paying ‘batai’/rent- Merely because in a simple civil suit for injunction and not for declaration petitioner was not found in possession; it cannot be inferred that petitioner was not the landownerEviction order upheld-Punjab Security of Land Tenures A«,1953, S.14 (1) (A).


  1. Jia Lai & Anr. v. The State of Haryana & Ors., 1971 P LJ. 81. (Para 6)


,”v*f. Rakesh Kumar Jain.J: (Oral):- These two petitions, bearing CWP-15154 of 2015 titled as Baiwant Singh and another Vs. Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab and others and CWP No.15155 of 2015 titled asAnanta Singh and others Vs. Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab and others are being disposed of by this common order because the issue involved in both the cases is the same but for the sake of convenience, the facts are extracted from CWP-15154 of 2015 titled as Balwant Singh and another Vs. Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab and others.

  1. The private respondents No. 5 to 7 filed an application in Form “L” under Rule 22 of the Punjab
    Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short/the Rules’) and Section 14 (1) (A) of the
    Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short.’the Act1) before the Assistant Collector
    1st Grade, Ajnala, seeking ejectment of the petitioners in respect of the land measuring 4 kanals
    failing in Khasra No.24 on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent in terms of Section 9
  2. The case set up by the petitioners before the A.C.Ist Grade, was that the land in dispute
    was a forest area and they have been in possession whereas the private respondents
    produced on record jamabandi for the year 1997-98 in which in column No.9 it is recorded
    “Bate/ Nesfi ‘(Pedawar1) which means that the petitioners were paying Y* of yield ‘Pedawat*
    to the private respondents on account of permissible possession over the land in
  3. In view thereof, A.C. 1st Grade, Ajnala, passed the order of eviction on 21.1.2005 on the ground that since there is no evidence brought on record by the petitioners of having paid the rent to the private respondents, therefore, they were liable to be evicted.
  4. The order dated 21.1.2005 passed by the A.C 1st Grade, was further challenged by the
    petitioners before the Collector, Amritsar, by way of appeal which was dismissed vide order
    dated 30.6.2006, the revision filed by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner
    (Appeals) Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, was dismissed on 12.11.2008 and the revision filed
    by the petitioners before the Financial Commissioner also met the same fate on 01.12.2009.
  5. Not only that the petitioners approached this Court after a period of 4Yz years in order to
    challenge the aforesaid orders passed by the revenue authorities but also could not bring on
    record any evidence to the effect that they were not the tenants of the private respondents.
  6. During the course of hearing, the petitioners placed on record the decision of the Civil Court
    (Annexure P-6) which was between one Kewal Singh son of Lachhman Singh and the
    It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in that case, Kewal Singh
    could not prove his possession over the land in question and, therefore, the suit was
    dismissed on 17.9.1987, whereas the private respondents are claiming themselves to be the
    owners of the property on the basis of having purchased it from Kewal Singh. The petitioners
    have no relationship of landlord and tenants with the private respondents, therefore, the
    revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to decide the same. In this regard, learned counsel for
    the petitioners has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Jia Lai and another Vs.
    The State of Haryana and others, 1971 P.LJ. 81, in which it has been held that if relationship
    of landlord and tenant is denied, it is a disputed question of title which shall be decided by the
    Civil Court not the revenue authorities.
  7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that there is
    no question of any dispute because the respondents have relied upon documentary evidence
    to prove the relationship between the parties by way of producing the jamabandi to which
    presumption of truth is attached under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for
    short, ‘the Act’). It is submitted that the petitioners did not dispute the correctness of the
    jamabandi entry before the revenue authorities as the jamabandi was neither got corrected
    nor a Civil Suit was filed under Section 45 of the Act.
  8. It is also submitted that insofar as the Civil Suit is concerned, filed by Kewal Singh against the
    petitioners, it was only a suit for permanent injunction in which Kewal Singh was not found in
    possession but the evidence brought on record is that Kewal Singh had become owner of the
    property by virtue of mutation No.441 which was also incorporated in the jamabandi. The only
    fact which Kewal Singh failed to prove was his possession on account of the entry in the
    khasra girciawari.
  9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, I am of the considered
    opinion that there is no merit in this petition. The private respondents had filed an application
    in FornY’L” for seeking eviction of the petitioners on the ground that they have not paid the rent
    without sufficient cause. The question was raised by the petitioners about the status of the
    private respondents of being the landlords which has been proved by leading evidence by
    placing on record jamabandi for the year 1997-98 in which in column No.9, it is categorically
    mentioned that the petitioners are in possession of the land and are paying ‘batai Nifsi
    Pedawar’ which means that they have been sharing the crop with the landlords, namely, the
    tespondents to the extent of Yz
  10. In order to ascertain the status of the person in possession, column No.9 of the jamabandi
    is always looked into because it will explain as to whether the person in possession is a tenant
    or otherwise.
  11. in this case, the petitioners have been paying rent by way of ‘Bataf to the extent of !4 share.
    Therefore, it has been rightly held by the Add!, Commissioner that the petitioners had been
    tenants of’the respondents and there was relationship of landlords and tenants between the
    parties for which there was no necessity to get a declaration from the Civil Court. It is submitted
    by learned counsel for the respondents that the possession has already been taken. Be that
    as it may, the facts remains that the petitioners have been held to be the tenants under the
    respondents and have been rightly evicted from the land in question on the ground of non
    payment of rent.
  12. Insofar as the Civil Suit is concerned, which has been primarily relied upon by the petitioners
    was between Kewal Singh and the petitioners and was simply a suit for permanent injunction
    and not declaration in which Kewal Singh did not seek his title to be declared over the land in
    question in which he was not found in possession, therefore, injunction was rightly declined but
    the Civil Court specifically recorded that there is an entry of change of ownership in favour of
    Kewal Singh by way of mutation No.441.
  13. In view of the above, there is hardly any ground to interfere in these petitions and the same
    are hereby dismissed.