Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
VED PARKASH V/S FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA, decided on Friday, February 4, 1994.
[ In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Civil Writ Petition Appeal No. 8784 of 1993. ] 04/02/1994
Judge(s) : G.R. MAJITHIA & S.K. JAIN
Advocate(s) : B.L. Shingal, Lokesh Singhal, M.S. Jain, N.D. Sharma.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page


Judgments that may be related:-


  Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.Versus Som Parkash Sethi & Another,   16/05/2016.  

  Mir Singh & Others Versus State of Haryana & Others,   02/03/2016.  

  Om Parkash & Others Versus State of Haryana,   17/02/2016.  

  Sumeet Bajwa Versus State of Punjab & Others,   12/01/2016.  

  Brij Mohan Gupta Versus State of Haryana & Another,   10/09/2015.  

  Brij Mohan Gupta Versus State of Haryana & Another,   10/09/2015.  

  Laj Dass (deceased) through L.Rs. & Others Versus Jethu & Others,   04/09/2015.  

  Harminder Singh Koghar Versus Ramnath Exports Private Ltd.,   01/09/2015.  

  Vodafone South Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Chandigarh,   06/08/2015.  

  Jagdish Chand & Others Versus Amar Singh & Others ,   01/07/2015.  

  Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Superb Agrovet Industries (P.) Ltd.,   19/05/2015.  

  Tara Chand & Others Versus Virender Singh & Another,   19/03/2015.  

  Dalip Kumar Jha & Another Versus State of Punjab & Others,   01/12/2014.  

  Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,Investigation Circle, Faridabad Versus Om Parkash Aggarwal (HUF),   30/09/2014.  

  Gram Panchayat, Kalinjar, Tehsil Nuh, District Mewat & Another Versus Commissioner, Gurgaon & Another Division, Gurgaon,   02/05/2014.  

  Pali Banarsi, Karnal (Haryana) Versus Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi & Others,   02/04/2014.  

  Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur Versus Maharao Bhim Singh,   26/03/2014.  

  Narender Kumar Versus Haryana Labour Welfare Board & Others,   12/03/2014.  

  Sultan Singh & Others Versus State of Haryana & Others,   29/11/2013.  

  Om Parkash & Others Versus State of Haryana & Others,   29/11/2013.  

  Roop Chand Versus State of Haryana & Others,   11/07/2013.  

  Raman Versus State of Haryana & Others,   02/07/2013.  

  Sube Singh & Another Versus State of Haryana & Another,   09/04/2013.  

  Parkash Chand Nariala Versus State of Haryana & Others,   05/04/2013.  

  Jagat Singh Dahiya Versus State of Haryana & Another,   23/01/2013.  

  Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation & Others Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Another,   03/01/2013.  

  Anand Prakash Versus Government of N.C.T. of Delhi Through Chief Secretary & Others,   19/11/2012.  

  Mukesh Kumar Solanki, HCS Versus State of Haryana, through Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Civil Secretariat & Others,   02/07/2012.  

  Poonam Rani @ Poonam Versus State of Haryana & Another,   01/05/2012.  

  Purvankara Projects Limited, Bangalore Versus The Urban Development Department, Bangalore & Others,   20/04/2012.  

  Band Box Private Ltd. Versus Estate Officer & Another,   19/03/2012.  

  Institute Of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences Versus Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Others,   05/03/2012.  

  Lalita Kumari & Others Versus Government of U.P. & Others,   27/02/2012.  

  Bangalore Development Authority Versus The Air Craft Employees Cooperative Society Ltd. & Others,   24/01/2012.  

  Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Estate Officer, Kaithal & Another Versus Ved Parkash & Others,   15/11/2011.  

  Ved Parkash & Others Versus State of Haryana & Another,   13/10/2011.  

  M/s. Wireless TT Info Services Limited & Another Versus State of Haryana & Others,   03/06/2011.  

  Soni Versus Kanchan & Others,   02/06/2011.  

  SH. Pritam Singh Versus SH. Dhare & Others,   21/03/2011.  

  Dr. Rajesh Rajora & Others Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another,   08/03/2011.  

  S.P.S. Rathore Versus Central Bureau of Investigation,   01/09/2010.  

  Dr. Bhupesh Kumar Goel Versus State of Punjab & Another,   03/08/2010.  

  Ashok Kumar Todi Versus Kishwar Jahan & Others,   18/05/2010.  

  State Language Teachers Association Rep. by its State General Secretary, Palla Sathaiah & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Legislative Affairs and Justice, Hyderabad & Others,   16/04/2010.  

  Jai Kishan Dass & Others Versus The Haryana State & Others,   09/03/2010.  

  Dayal Sarup Versus Om Parkash (Since Deceased) Through L.Rs & Others,   24/02/2010.  

  Hari Ram & Another Versus The State of Haryana & Others,   11/02/2010.  

  Jaimal Versus State of H.P.,   01/09/2009.  

  Jaimal Versus State of H.P.,   01/08/2009.  

  Kommisetty Nammalwar & Co., Guntur Versus The Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur, Represented by its Secretary & Others,   01/05/2009.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "1994 AIR (P&H) 316"  







    Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 - Section 14A(ii) -     (1) THE petitioner has challenged the order of Financial Commissioner Haryana passed in R. O. R. No. 30 of 1991-9 2/05/1993 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner Gurgaon Division Gurgaon dated 14/08/1992 passed in Appeal Case No. 23/91-92 who in turn had affirmed the order of the District Collector Gurgaon dated 20/11/1991 reversing in appeal the order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade Faridabad dated 21/09/1990 passed in Case No. 181 / 88 of 16-7-1985 whereby the abetment of Ram Sarup tenant/ respondent No. 5 was ordered from the suit land. He has also challenged the order of Financial Commissioner Haryana dated 17/05/1993 passed in R. O. R. No. 289 of 1991-92 whereby the recommendation made by the Commissioner Gurgaon Division Gurgaon vide his order dated 23/05/1992 for setting aside order dated 5/02/1988 passed by Assistant Collector I Grade ordering abetment of respondent No. 5 from the disputed land and the order dated 16/08/1988 passed by the District Collector dismissing the appeal filed by respondent No. 5 against the order of the Assistant Collector 11 Grade was accepted in this petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India. (2) VED Parkash petitioner (hereinafter the landlord) purchased the disputed land from the original owner Sint. Sita Devi widow of Teeka Ram on 14/06/1983 under whom Ram Saroop respondent No. 5 was a tenant on payment of 1/3rd Batai. The landlord filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent against the tenant in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade Palwal. The abetment was sought on the ground that the tenant had not deposited/ paid rent for the period from Kharif 1983 to Rabi 1984 and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade Palwal vide his judgment and decree dated 21/09/1990 found that the tenant had defaulted in making payment of the rent and he accordingly ordered his abetment from the disputed land. The landlord took possession of the disputed land. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade Palwal the tenant challenged the same in appeal before the District Collector Faridabad who vide his judgment and decree dated 20/11/1991 accepted the tenants appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Palwal and directed the tenant to pay rent for Kharif 1983 to Rabi 1984 i. e. Rs. 3214. 00 to the landlord or deposit the same in the treasury. The landlord was directed to deliver back the possession to the tenant. The landlord being aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the District Collector Faridabad challenged the same in further appeal before the Commissioner Gurgaon Division Gurgaon in case No. 23/ 91-91. The appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 14/08/1992. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Commissioner Gurgaon Division Gurgaon the landlord challenged the same in revision bearing R. C. R. No. 30 of 1991-92 under S. 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 11/05/1993. (3) THE landlord filed an application in Form m as contemplated under S. 14a (ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 (for short the Act) claiming abetment of the tenant for non-payment of rent for the crops of Kharif 1981 to Rabi 1984. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade Palwal vide his order dated 5/02/1988 directed the tenant to deposit Rs. 10 011. 75 within one month from the date of the order failing which he would consider himself to have been ejected. The tenant unsuccessfully challenged the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Palwal in appeal before the District Collector Faridabad who dismissed the same vide his order dated 16/08/1988. The tenant challenged the order of the District Collector in Executive Revision No. 50 of 1989-90 before the Commissioner Gurgaon Division Gurgaon. The Commissioner did not agree with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the District Collector and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and made a recommendation to the Financial Commissioner Haryana for setting aside the orders of the Assistant Collector Faridabad dated 5/02/1988 and 16/08/1988 respectively. While making recommendation for setting aside the orders of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and the District Collector he observed thus:-I have carefully heard both the parties and have also gone through the file. From the notice dated 5-3-87 in Form n available on the file it is not clear as to how much amount was payable by the petitioner. In this notice the crops 1981 to Rabi 1984 have been mentioned. In his reply to this notice given by him on 16-5-1987 he had made it clear that the respondent was entitled to recover Batai only for Kharif 1983 to Rabi 1984 but the Assistant Collector Ist Grade did not record any finding on it nor did he serve amended notice in Form n on the petitioner which was necessary to be given I entirely agree with the rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard. While remanding the case vide his order dated 6-6-85 the Collector had also directed that the application of the petitioner under Section 14-A (iii) be also decided with this case but the Assistant Collector 1st Grade has said nothing about it in his order and he only observed in his order that the petitioner should deposit the amount of rent in accordance with the produce statement within a period of one month failing which he should consider himself to have been ejected. Even in this order it has not been mentioned as to what amount is to be deposited by the petitioner. It has also not been made clear in the order as to of which crops the amount is to be deposited. From this also it becomes evident that the notice in Form n as prescribed under the Rules was not given correctly I do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner should not have been given more time because it had not been made clear to the petitioner as to what amount is to be deposited by him. In these circumstances the revision is forwarded to the learned Financial Commissioner with the recommendation that the order dated 5-2-88 of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade Palwal and the order dated 16-8-88 of the Collector be set aside and the case be sent to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Palwal with the direction to decide the case afresh after giving a clear notice in Form n in accordance with law to the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. The Financial Commissioner Haryana. vide his order dated 17/05/1993 accepted the recommendation of the Commissioner Gurgaon Division Gurgaon and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade Palwal dated February 5. 1988 and that of Collector Faridabad dated 16/08/1988 observing thus:-i have gone through the file and find that the notice which was served on 5/03/1987 was defedefective and did not indicate the amount payable by the petitioner. This notice related to the Kharif 1981 to Rabi 1984 whereas the respondent was entitled to Batai from Kharif 1983 to Rabi 1984. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade has not determined the amount payable by the petitioner. Further the amount in this case is more than Rs. 1000. 00. The proceedings in Form m are not maintainable as the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector land Grade is only up to Rs. 1 000. 00 as held in 1959 LLT 41. In view of the findings above I accept the recommendation of the Commissioner Gurgaon Division to the extent that the orders of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade dated 5/02/1988 and that of Collector dated 16/08/1988 be set aside. The respondent may seek remedy under the Punjab Tenancy Act. if he so desires. Having failed before the Revenue authorities the landlord has moved this Court to interfere with the just orders passed by the Financial Commissioner Haryana saving the poor tenant from the clutches of the landowner in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction. (4) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a tenant could be evicted even for committing a single default payment of rent. The submission is devoid of any merit. On a petition filed in Form m as contemplated under Section 14-A (ii) of the Act notice in Form n was issued to the tenant as prescribed under the Rules. The Revenue authorities have found that the notice was defective inasmuch as it was not mentioned therein the actual amount of rent due from the tenant. The landlord could not recover rent for the period prior to the date of purchase of the land. The proceedings initiated under Section 14-A (ii) of the Act were defective. (5) IN the suit filed by the landlord for the recovery of rent and abetment of the tenant the District Collector Faridabad after appraisal of the evidence gave a firm finding that the tenant had established that he could not deposit the rent for sufficient reasons. After so holding he came to the conclusion that the tenant could not be evicted for non-deposit of rent as he was not at fault. The finding so recorded by the District Collector was affirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated 14/08/1992 and by the Financial Commissioner Haryana vide order dated 11/05/1993. The Financial Commissioner in his order observed thus :-i have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record. Assistant Collector Ist Grade has not given any finding on the point that the petitioner is a small landowner nor the petitioner had been able to prove that Smt. Sita Devi from whom the petitioner has purchased the land was a small landowner. Only the rent for the period from Kharif 1983 to Rabi 1984 was due from the respondent which could not be paid by him as the Assistant Collector IInd Grade had dismissed the application of the respondent on 16/03/1985 holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist as the order of eviction had been passed against the respondent on 17th Dec. 1984. Thus there was valid ground before the respondent in not depositing the rent for the disputed period. (6) ON the findings recorded by the Revenue Officer on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties there was no default on the part of the tenant for not depositing the rent due. It appears that the landlord has adopted every conceivable method for depriving the tenant of the possession of the disputed land which he had obtained after the Assistant Collector had passed the order in his favour and he has been successful in thwarting the attempt of the tenant to reap the benefit of the orders passed by the Revenue officers in his favour for more than four years. (7) FOR the reasons stated above there is no merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.