MANA RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order (Annexure 'C') of the Financial Commissioner respondent No. 1 remanding the case to the Commissioner for a fresh decision in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act No. X of 1953 (hereinafter briefly referred to as the Act and unless otherwise indicated references may be taken to be to the sections of this Act) has been filed under the following circumstances.

(2.) Petitioners are separately in possession of some land belonging to Jagta respondent No. 2, as tenants. They filed applications under Section 18 for the purchase of the lands in their possession and these applications were allowed by the Assistant Collector on August 6, 1966 inspite of the fact that the Collector, Surplus Area, had recorded a finding about a fortnight earlier on July 22, 1966 that respondent No. 2 was a small landowner and that he had no surplus area with him. The order of the Collector, Surplus Area, is Annexure 'A' to the petition and shows that it had been passed on the application of one Sadhu Ram who is not a party to the present proceedings. It is not clear from the record as to the capacity or the locus standi of Sadhu Ram in making that application, unless he was in possession of some land belonging to respondent No. 2 whether as a tenant or otherwise. The order of the Collector, Surplus Area, records that the petitioners' land was in the possession of old tenants and that their statements had been recorded along with that of the landowner. The petitioners, however, contended in this case that they were not a party to the proceedings in which the Collector, Surplus Area, had passed the order dated July 22, 1966 (Annexure 'A').

(3.) The Collector, Surplus Area, had relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Khan Chand V. State of Punjab and others, 1966 PunLJ 138 , in coming to the finding that respondent No. 2 was a small landowner and he had no surplus area with him. He owned less than 30 standard acres of land which on being converted were more than 60 ordinary acres. In this connection the definition of 'permissible area' in sub-section (3) of Section 2 may be referred to. Khan Chand, a displaced person was the original allottee, but in view of the explanation to the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 2, the heirs and successors of the displaced person to whom the land had been originally allotted could not be treated as displaced persons for the determination of their permissible areas.