Boor Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs And Others vs Financial Commissioner Haryana And Others

132
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

LPA-3026-2026 (O&M)

Reserved on :15.10.2026
Pronounced on : 2.11.2026
Uploaded on : 3.11.2026


BOOR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS


...Appellants

Versus

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA AND OTHERS

…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH GAUR

Present : Mr. Gurbachan Singh Goria, Advocate and
Mr. S.S. Sodhi, Advocate
for the appellants.

RAJESH GAUR, J.
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under
Clause X of the Letters Patent, seeking setting aside of the impugned order
dated 27.08.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-22379-2019 ,
whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants seeking issuance of
a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 04.12.2018
(Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana
(respondent No.1); order dated 08.01.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by the

GURPREET KAUR
2026.11.03 11:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-3026-2026 (O&M) -2-

Commissioner, Hisar Division; order dated 28.07.2017 (Annexure P-3)
passed by the learned District Collector, Sirsa and order dated 16.04.2015
(Annexure P-4) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade Ellenabad,
District Sirsa, was dismissed.
1.1 The appellants have assailed the aforesaid orders on the
grounds that the same are illegal, arbitrary and erroneous on the face of the
record.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are tenants,
whereas respondents No.5 to 8 are the landowners who purchased the land
from its previous owner, Smt. Om Kumari, vide registered sale deed dated
26.05.2011. Respondent no.5 initiated proceedings for eviction of the
appellants. Vide order dated 16.04.2015 (Annexure P-4), the Assistant
Collector Ist Grade, Ellenabad, directed the appellants to deposit an amount
of Rs.1,49,731/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum within
15 days. The appellants failed to comply with the said direction. The appeal
preferred by the appellants against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the
District Collector, Sirsa, vide order dated 28.07.2017, who upheld the
validity of sale deed No. 863 dated 26.05.2011 and directed appropriate
action in respect of the document alleged to have been forged and relied
upon by the appellants. The subsequent revision petitions preferred by the
appellants before the competent authorities, including the Financial
Commissioner, were also dismissed. The writ petition filed by the appellants
challenging the aforesaid orders having been dismissed by the learned Single
Judge, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
GURPREET KAUR
2026.11.03 11:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-3026-2026 (O&M) -3-
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following
three contentions:
First , that respondents No.5 to 8 were not entitled to claim
batai in violation of Rule 11 of the Punjab Security of Land
Tenures Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules,
1956”);
Second , that appellants have been cultivating the land for the
last 30-35 years and have been paying rent initially at the rate of
Rs.3,500/- and subsequently at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per crop,
aggregating to Rs.10,000/- annually; and
Third , that Form 'L' was defective, as it did not specify the date
and year and did not bear the signature of the respondent
concerned.
4. It is pertinent to note that before the learned Single Judge, the
appellants had confined their challenge only to the alleged procedural
non-compliance relating to Form `L’.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the
material available on record, including the relevant statutory provisions.
6. Rule 11 of the Rules, 1956, reads as under :-
“ 11. Assignment of marks to farms for the purposes of
classification.
(1) The maximum marks to be awarded to a farm, for the
purposes of classification, shall be 1,000.
(2) The features for which marks are awardable are those given
in Schedule A, and marks shall be awarded for each feature,
subject to the maximum marks noted against each in this
Schedule:
Provided that in allotting marks for 'Yields' the Committee shall
apply the standard yields given in Schedule B, subject to such
suitable adjustments as may be considered necessary on

account of natural calamities.”
GURPREET KAUR
2026.11.03 11:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-3026-2026 (O&M) -4-

6.1 A perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that Rule 11 deals
with the assignment of marks to farms for the purposes of classification,
with reference to the features specified in Schedule A and the standard yields
prescribed in Schedule B. The said provision, therefore, does not, by itself,
support the appellants’ contention that respondents No.5 to 8 were not
entitled to claim batai . The relevant record further indicates that the
Assistant Collector Ist Grade assessed the jhar patwar in accordance with
the procedure stated to have been prescribed under Section 14(a) of the
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.
7. The contention of the appellants that the rent was fixed at the
rate of Rs.10,000/- per annum is untenable. The appellants had themselves
admitted their liability to pay batai at the rate of one-third share ( tihai ) in the
revenue and civil records, as reflected in the pre-emption proceedings
(Annexures R-1 and R-2). The relevant jamabandi for the year 2012–2013
also records the rent payable as batai/tihai.
8. As regards the alleged defect in Form 'L', a perusal of Annexure
P-5 reveals that out of the four signatures appearing to be required on the
form, two have been duly appended and a date has been encircled in the
details column. Thus, the appellants' assertion that the form does not contain
any date or signature is not borne out by the document in its entirety.
Although, the appellants have alleged procedural non-compliance, they have
not demonstrated how the alleged omissions, when considered in the context
of the form as a whole and the subsequent proceedings, rendered the
proceedings invalid or caused any prejudice to them. Hence, the averment
GURPREET KAUR
2026.11.03 11:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-3026-2026 (O&M) -5-

made by the appellants is not wholly sustainable and is found to be
untenable.
9. The appellants instituted a suit for permanent injunction on
31.01.2013, apprehending their eviction. Subsequently, the respondents
initiated eviction proceedings under Form 'L' on 12.12.2014, wherein the
appellants admitted the ownership of the respondents and their own status as
tenants. Their pre-emption suit was dismissed on 07.10.2015. The appellants
also failed to deposit rent as directed by the revenue authority.
9.1 Furthermore, the agreement to sell dated 14.10.1997, relied
upon by the appellants before the Collector, was found to be forged during
an inquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), leading to the
registration of an FIR against the appellants, namely, Ramesh Singh and
Balbir Singh. The bail orders in this regard have been placed on record as
Annexures R-4 and R-5.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly
the appellants’ admissions regarding their status as tenants and their liability
to pay batai , their failure to deposit the amount as directed by the Assistant
Collector Ist Grade and the concurrent findings recorded by the revenue
authorities, no ground for interference with the impugned order passed by
the learned Single Judge is made out. The principles laid down by this Court
in Gian Chand and others v. Financial Commissioner and others,
1999(3) RCR(Civil) 281 may also be considered, wherein the
Division Bench relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

GURPREET KAUR
2026.11.03 11:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-3026-2026 (O&M) -6-

Kapur Chand v. B. S. Grewal, Financial Commissioner, Punjab,
Chandigarh and others, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1491 and the judgment
of this Court in Bhagirath Ram Chand v. State of Punjab & others, AIR
1954 Punjab 167 , to reiterate in verbatim the comprehensive principles laid
down therein, which emphasizes on the tenant's liability to regularly pay the
rent, authority’s duty in considering the prior conduct of tenants and rights
of protection of landlords.
11. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.


[SUVIR SEHGAL] [RAJESH GAUR]
JUDGE JUDGE
November 2, 2026
gurpreet

Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No


GURPREET KAUR
2026.11.03 11:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document