Harvinder Singh Petitioner v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana And Others S

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

Petitioner has challenged all the orders passed by the revenue authorities in this writ petition on the ground that the impugned orders have been passed under Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 for restoration of possession to respondent no. 5.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Khasra Girdawri was corrected and the petitioner has been shown to be in possession thereafter. The suit filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction was also decreed. He also submitted that even the complaint made by respondent no. 5 under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, have also been dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the revenue record.

As per jamabandi for the year 2001-02, before the property in dispute was purchased by the petitioner, respondent no. 5 has been recorded as Gair Marausi in column no. 5 and the rate of rent is recorded as Batai Tihai Bashrah Khata No. 2 in column no. 9, which means that respondent no. 5 was recorded as tenant before the land in dispute was purchased by the petitioner. Admittedly, there is no order produced by the petitioner on record to show that respondent no. 5 was, at any point of time, evicted from the land in dispute in accordance with the provisions of law and merely that the petitioner has got possession which is recorded in the Khasra Girdawari on the basis of which suit for permanent injunction was filed would not oust respondent no. 5 from the land in dispute as it is well settled law that a tenant is always a tenant until and unless he is dispossessed in accordance with law. In this case, after the property in dispute has been purchased by the petitioner from the owner/landlord of respondent no. 5, he would step into the shoe of his vendor and would automatically become landlord of respondent-tenant.

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, I have not found any error in all the orders of the revenue authorities in which the consistent view has been expressed in favour of respondent no. 5 that once he was a tenant, he cannot be dispossessed forcibly and the possession has been ordered to be restored.

Dismissed.