IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ISHAK KHAN AND OTHERS FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS CORAM: Present : HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL] CM-20184- which was dismissed for non passed by this Court. and order dated 03.09.2024 passed by Main petition i.e. number and status. case i.e. CWP IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ISHAK KHAN AND OTHERS Versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Upasana Dhawan, A.A.G., Haryana. HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL] CWP-2024 This is an application for restoring the main writ petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 03.09.2024, passed by this Court. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and order dated 03.09.2024 passed by this Court is hereby recalled. Main petition i.e. CWP-610-1998 is ordered to be restored to its original number and status. Registry to carry out the necessary steps accordingly. On oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner CWP-610-1998 is taken up on Board today itself. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-610-1998 (O&M) Date of decision :13.05.2025 …Petitioners FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA, CHANDIGARH …Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Ms. Upasana Dhawan, A.A.G., Haryana. This is an application for restoring the main writ petition, prosecution vide order dated 03.09.2024, For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed this Court is hereby recalled. is ordered to be restored to its original Registry to carry out the necessary steps accordingly. On oral request of learned counsel for the petitioners, the main is taken up on Board today itself. 6 1998 (O&M) Date of decision :13.05.2025 This is an application for restoring the main writ petition, prosecution vide order dated 03.09.2024, For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed this Court is hereby recalled. is ordered to be restored to its original s, the main GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.11 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh CWP-610-1998 (O&M) Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 13.12.1993 (Annexure P-1); order dated 12.09.1994 (Annexure P-2); order dated 16.03.1995 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 02.09.1997 (Annexure P-5). 2. Briefly, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners No.1 to 8 namely, Sh. Rehmat son of Sh. Nagila, along with petitioners No.9 and 10, were in possession of the land in dispute, which was owned by respondents No.5 to 8, herein. 2.1 Respondents no.5 to 8 filed a petition under Section 77(3)(e) & (n) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for short `the 1887 Act’) read with Sections 9 and 14 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short `the 1953 Act’) for recovery of rent and ejectment, in respect of land measuring 10 kanal-10 marlas, comprised in killa Nos.23//25/2 and 26//5 situated at Village Manota, Tehsil Ferozepur Jhirka, District Gurgaon. It was the pleaded case of respondents No.5 to 8 in the afore-said eviction petition that the present petitioners had cultivated the land in dispute as tenants under them for the period kharif 1982 to Rabi 1987; however, they had not paid the agreed rent for the said crops without any sufficient cause, despite demand and rather refused to pay the same. 2.2 The petitioners appeared in the afore-said ejectment proceedings and contested the claim of respondents No.5 to 8, inter alia, on the plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and also that they had become owners on account of adverse possession; therefore, respondents No.5 to 8 had no right to seek the ejectment of the petitioners. GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.11 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 2.3 Respondents no.5 to 8 controverted the stand of the petitioners by filing their replication and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- “(i) Whether the defendant is liable to be ejected from the land in dispute on the ground alleged in the suit ? OPP (ii) How the plaintiffs are entitled to the lagan? OPP (iii) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants? OPD (iv) Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present dispute? OPD (v) Whether the defendants have become owners of the land in dispute and that the plaintiffs have no concern with the same? OPD (vi) Relief.” 2.4 The respective parties led evidence in support of their claims. The learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ferozepur Jhirka, vide order dated 13.12.1993 (Annexure P-1) took note of the fact that the present petitioners had filed a suit before the Civil Court, seeking declaration that they had become owners on the basis of their occupancy rights, which was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.10.1986; however, an appeal filed by respondents No.5 to 8 came to be allowed by the Appellate Court and the trial Court’s judgment was reversed vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.1987. Even the Regular Second Appeal (RSA No.48 of 1988) came to be dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 23.01.1981 (Exhibit P-6 on record); wherein the petitioners were held to be only tenants. On that basis, the learned Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant and also that respondents No.5 to 8 were held entitled to recover the rent (lagan) for the crops in dispute. Accordingly, the eviction of the petitioners was ordered. GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.11 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 2.5 Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 13.12.1993 (Annexure P-1), petitioners preferred appeal(s) before the learned Collector, Gurgaon, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.09.1994 (Annexure P-2). Further revision(s) preferred by the petitioners before the learned Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon were also dismissed vide order dated 16.03.1995 (Annexure P-3). 2.6 It appears that the further second revision (ROR Nos.18 and 19 of 1994-95) preferred by the petitioners were allowed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana vide an order dated 21.03.1995; however, on review applications submitted by respondents No.5 to 8, the order dated 21.03.1996 was set aside by the learned Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 29.03.1996 and vide order dated 02.09.1997 (Annexure P-5), both the revision petitions preferred by the petitioners were dismissed and the order dated 16.03.1995 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Commissioner, Gurgaon was maintained. 2.7 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court, for the relief/s, as noticed here-in-above. 3. Heard. 4. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are two folds: firstly, while reviewing the order dated 21.03.1996 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners, which was contrary to the principles of natural justice and secondly, that there is no material on record to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, the ejectment order could not have been passed. 5. I have considered both the afore-said submissions; however, I do not find any merit in the same, for the reasons mentioned henceforth. GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.11 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 5.1 As far as the first contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned that while reviewing the earlier order dated 21.03.1996 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners; suffice it to say that the order dated 21.03.1996 (Annexure P-4) was reviewed vide order dated 29.03.1996, however, a copy thereof has not been placed on record nor any challenge has been made to the order dated 29.03.1996. In the absence of any challenge to the order dated 29.03.1996 passed on the review application, the afore-said contention of the petitioners is liable to be rejected. 5.2 So far as the second contention that there is no material on record to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it is observed that the petitioners had earlier filed a suit before the Civil Court, seeking declaration of their ownership in respect of the land in question based upon their plea of having acquired the rights of occupancy tenant. Although, the said suit was initially decreed; however, on appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 20.10.1986 of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.1987. The Appellate Court’s judgment has been further affirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 23.01.1991 passed in RSA-48-1988, the relevant extract of which reads as under :- “The maximum that can be said is that the plaintiffs- appellants came in possession of the suit land for the first time on 25-6-1960 and, that being so, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs-appellants had acquired the occupancy rights over the suit land or had become the owners thereof. In Exhibits P-6 and P-7, jamabandis for the year 1977-78, the plaintiffs- appellants have been recorded as gair morusi and there is absolutely nothing on the record to show that the plaintiffs- GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.11 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh appellants had acquired occupancy rights or had become owners of the suit land.” 5.3 A bare perusal of the above extracted findings returned by this Court clearly proves the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; therefore, the afore-said contention of the petitioners is also rejected. 6. Considering the totality of circumstances, I find no merit in the petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. All pending applications (if any) shall also stand closed. May 13, 2025 (HARSH BUNGER) gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.11 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh