S GURBAX SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave raises the question of the true scope of the expression "selected area" within the meaning of S. 5-B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 195.3, (Act No. 10 of 1953), as amended by Act No. 46 of 1957, hereinafter called the Act.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute and they are as follows:The appellant is a tenant under respondent No. 3 since the year 1950 in respect of 49 bighas of land. As he was in continuous occupation of the said land for a period of 6 years, he applied under S. 18 of the Act and R. 23 of the Rules made thereunder in the prescribed form to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade Fazilka, for the purpose of the said land. The Assistant Collector held-it does not appear that the 3rd respondent questioned the right of the appellant to purchase the said land-that the appellant was entitled to purchase the land and determined the price payable by the appellant to the 3rd respondent in a sum of Rs. 20.630 and ordered that the said amount was payable in 10 equal six-monthly instalments. On appeal to the Collector. Ferozepure the order of the Assistant Collector was confirmed. On a revision petition filed by the 3rd respondent before the Additional Commissioner, Jullunder, the said Commissioner took the view that the said area was selected by the 3rd respondent under S. 5-B of the Act and, therefore, the appellant had no right to purchase the same under S. 18 of the Act. On that view, he submitted the case to the Financial Commissioner) Punjab, who, agreeing with the view expressed by the Additional Commissioner, Jullunder, held that the 3rd respondent did not reserve the said area under S. 5 (1) of the Act and, therefore, he was entitled to select the same under S. 5-B of the Act and that the appellant had no right to purchase the same under S. 18 thereof. In the result, he accepted the revision. The appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh for quashing the order of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, but the said petition was dismissed in limine. Hence the present appeal. The scope of this appeal should necessarily be confined to the ambit of the writ petition in the High Court. It is therefore, necessary for the appellant to establish that the order of the Financial Commissioner was without jurisdiction or was vitiated by an error of law apparent on the record.

(3.) As there was no question of want of jurisdiction in the Financial Commissioner to dispose of the revision, it was contended that the said order was vitiated by two errors of law on the face of the record:firstly, it was argued that the Commissioner committed an obvious error in holding that the 3rd respondent had not reserved the said land under S. 5 (1) of the Act when as a matter of fact he had done so, and secondly, it was said that a landlord who did not reserve any area under S. 5 {1) of the Act but selected the area under S. 5-B of the Act, could not evict the tenant under Section 9 (1) of the Act and, therefore, the tenant had the right under S. 18 to purchase the said land in his possession for the prescribed period.