JUDGMENT
N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions 5434 and 5435 of 2000 in which common questions of law and fact arise. For the sake of convenience, facts have been taken from CWP 5434 of 2000.
2. Smt. Sarsati Devi and Rajender Kumar respondents filed a suit for the recovery of 1/3rd batai amounting to Rs. 5292.90 paise from the Mota the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein for the crops from Kharif 1983 to Rabi 1987 in regard to the land in dispute situate in village Chautala, tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. The suit was contested by Mota on the plea that the land in question was tenants’ permissible area (TPA) and that with the coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 the same vested in the State and, therefore, there was no relationship of landlord an tenant between the parties. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:-
“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the batai of the crops in dispute in respect of the land in dispute from the defendant-tenant? If yes, to what amount. OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the land in dispute or whether the land in dispute has vested in the State of Haryana w.e.f. 24.1.71 ? OPD
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not within limitation? OPD
4. Whether deficient court fee has been affixed on the plaint of the present suit? OPD
5. Relief.”
3. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the Assistant Collector found that the plaintiffs (respondents 5 and 6 herein) were the owners of the land in dispute which was cultivated by Mota as a ‘Ghair Maurusi’ tenant on 1/3rd batai and that the same did not vest in the State government as there was no mention of the same in any revenue record. It was found that in the jamabandi for the relevant years the plaintiffs were recorded as owners and in the column of cultivation the name of the defendant appeared as a tenant on 1/3rd batai. Reference was made to the statement of Mota who admitted that he had been continuously paying rent of the land in dispute to the land owners. He no where stated that the land in dispute had been declared as his TPA. Consequently, issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants therein. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector, an appeal was filed before the Collector who dismissed the same by his order dated 30.12.1992 and the findings recorded by the Assistant Collector were affirmed. Petitioners then filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Hisar which was dismissed. Thereafter, they filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner who after examining the records also dismissed the same on 17.8.1999. It is against these orders that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioners who are successors-in-interest of Mota-defendant in the suit.
4. We have heard counsel for the petitioners and are of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition. It was contended by the learned counsel that the land in dispute was TPA which vested in the State government and, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. This plea has been negatived by all the courts below. It is true that in the jamabandi for the year 1951-52 the petitioners have been shown as old tenants but they by itself does not make the land in their possession as TPA. It was necessary for them to move an application asking for the allotment of the area as ‘A’ category tenants as they considered themselves eligible for the said allotment. Merely because the petitioners considered themselves eligible does not make the land under their cultivation as TPA without there being a specific order in that regard by a competent authority. TPA has to be specifically declared by a competent authority. There is nothing on the record to show that the land in dispute as ever declared as TPA in favour of the petitioners. In our view, the Financial Commissioner was right in holding that a tenant becomes the proprietor of the land only after the land is allotted to him under the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1976 and after the tenant had paid the first instalment of compensation determined and that till then he continues to be a tenant liable to pay rent. In the absence of any order declaring the area as TPA the courts below were right in decreeing the suit.
5. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed.