BIRBAL Vs. BAWA BASANT DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Birbal has filed this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court by which his petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order of the Financial Commissioner, dated 2nd September, 1967 (Annexures 'E' and 'F') was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly the facts of this case may be stated thus. Bawa Hari Dass was the original owner of the land in dispute. After his death, Balak Dass was allotted 49 Standard Acres and 1-1/2 Units of land, which was inherited by Bawa Basant Dass respondent No. 1, in the year 1957, claiming himself to be a Chela of Balak Dass. It was alleged that Balak Dass had made some reservation in the year 1953, after the coming into force of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act); but a dispute was raised by the appellant that the reservation was forgery. However, this question is not of any consequence in this case as whatever may have been the position, Basant Dass, respondent No. 1 was entitled to make a fresh selection after inheriting the property of Balak Dass. It appears that no selection was made by the respondent and ultimately the prescribed authority took action under sub-section (2) of Section 5-B and selected certain Khasra numbers for him and declared 36.67 Ordinary Acres of land as surplus vide his order dated 10th February, 1964. Birbal appellant preferred an appeal against that order of the Special Collector but the same was rejected by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, on 17th August, 1965. There is no dispute that the area selected by the Special Collector on 10th February, 1964, included that also which was claimed to have been occupied by the appellant as tenant.

(3.) On the basis of the selection so made, Basant Dass respondent made an application for ejectment of the appellant under Section 9(1)(i) of the Act. It may be mentioned that before this ejectment application was made, the appellant had already filed an application for purchase of the land which was under his tenancy. Both these applications were decided by the Assistant Collector vide his order dated 20th June, 1966, by which the ejectment application was allowed and the purchase application was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Assistant Collector, the appellant filed an appeal which was allowed by the Collector, Hissar, vide his order, dated 23rd August, 1966. The appellant was held to be entitled to purchase the entire land in dispute and accordingly the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector with a direction that the purchase application of the appellant be disposed of in the light of the decision of the appellate authority. Dissatisfied from the decision of the Collector, Basant Dass, respondent No. 1, preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner. Still aggrieved, Basant Dass respondent filed two revision petitions before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, who by his order dated 2nd September, 1967, held that there was no difference whatsoever between the selection made by the land-owner himself or by the Collector, under Section 5-B(2) of the Act and that the appellant was liable to be ejected. Accordingly the purchase application of the appellant was dismissed and his ejectment was ordered. It was in these circumstances that the appellant filed a writ petition in this Court which, as earlier observed, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.