BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Writ Petition No. 2710 of 1985 instituted by the appellants in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which not only should have been admitted but should have been allowed for the mere asking of it, having been dismissed, the original Writ Petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present appeal by special leave.

(2.) The appellants were allotted different parcels of land between 1967 and 1973 from out of the surplus area declared from the holding of one Abdul Latif Khan under the relevant provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Act). The appellants, allottees of the abovesaid parcels of land, deposited the appropriate instalments of purchase price and secured actual possession of these parcels of land and had been in possession thereof ever since. The allotment was made in their favour in order to resettle them on the lands which were declared surplus. An order was passed by the Commissioner of Patiala Division on January 14, 1981 in the wake of the death of the original land-holder Abdul Latif Khan, who died on January 9, 1978. The Commissioner by his aforesaid order directed that the appellants were liable to be dispossessed by reason of the fact that in view of the death of the original land-holder the permissible area which could be retained by the land-holder and the surplus area under the relevant provisions of law was required to be redetermined. He then recorded the finding that there was no surplus and directed the dispossession of the appellants. The appellants challenged the order passed by the Commissioner, before the Financial Commissioner by way of revision. The Financial Commissioner upheld the contention of the appellants in an extremely well-considered order and set aside the order of the Commissioner. Thereupon, the heirs of the deceased land-holder applied for review of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner on the ground that no such review was competent. The Financial Commissioner upheld this plea and set aside his previous order. Thereupon the appellants approached the High Court by way of the Writ Petition giving rise to the present appeal. The High Court, by a non-speaking order, dismissed the Writ Petition in limine. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) The Commissioner appears to have passed this order in the course of proceedings initiated by one Gulab Singh and Piyara Singh and some others on the promise that they were bona fide transferees to whom Abdul Latif Khan had transferred the lands on which the appellants had been settled before July 30, 1958 and that they should be accepted as transferees under S. 31 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. They prayed that the lands transferred to them should be excluded from the surplus area declared from out of the estate of the original land-holder, Abdul Latif Khan. These applications were rejected by the Commissioner after affording them an opportunity of hearing. The aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner has become final. Now, at no stage was there an occasion for the heirs of deceased land-holder Abdul Latif Khan to apply for reopening of the surplus order declared from the estate of the deceased land-holder which was inherited by them. Even so, the Commissioner thought that in view of the death of the original land- holder and in view of the fact that some of the persons claiming to be transferee had made an application for excluding their land from the surplus order, the determination made in 1963 which had become final by virtue of the dismissal in 1970 of the Writ Petition challenging the determination, could be reopened in. the context of S. 32-FF. This contention was altogether devoid of substance and was based on thorough misunderstanding. The Financial Commissioner had in the order which he was subsequently obliged to revoke on the ground of lack of jurisdiction had dealt with the merits in a lucid manner in the following passage :-