JAISI RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four Writ Petitions Nos. 2361, 2362, 2363 and 2364 of 1963, have been filed by Jaisi Ram, owner of the land in dispute in each case, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the orders passed on appeal by the Collector Agrarian, Patiala, respondent No. 4, and on revision by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, respondent No. 1, whereby respondent No. 3, the tenant in possession of the land in each case was conferred proprietary rights under Chapter IV of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Act' and where there are no contrary indications, references may be taken to be to the sections, parts or chapters of the said Act). As the questions of law and fact involved in these writ petitions are similar and the cases have been taken up together by the Revenue authorities these writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of by one judgment.

(2.) In Civil Writs Nos. 2362 and 2363, the revision petitions filed by the landowner were summarily dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, on the ground that copies of the orders challenged in revision had not been filed. In Civil Writ Nos. 2361 and 2364 the landowner had also pleaded that he had entered into a compromise with the tenants in possession of the lands described in the respective petitions and that these tenants had surrendered their rights under the lease and that they could not, therefore, be granted any proprietary rights in the lands in their possession. The ground common to all the petitions, however, is that the petitioner had purchased the land recently by a registered deed and that the tenants had not been in possession under him continuously for the requisite period of 12 years of the same parcel of land.

(3.) The summary rejection by the Financial Commissioner of the landlord's revision petitions was not justified as there is no provision in the Act or in the rules framed thereunder requiring the filing of copies with revision petitions. Such revisions lie under sub-section (3) of Section 39 which gives the Financial Commissioner the power to call for, examine and revise the proceedings of subordinate authorities in the manner provided under Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 . Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 39 dealing with filing of appeals indicate that certified copies of the orders under appeal are to accompany the memorandum of appeal but there is no such indication with regard to the filing of certified copies in sub-section (3) dealing with revisions. The rules framed under this Act or the Punjab Tenancy Act also do not require any copies to be filed with the revision petitions. The learned Counsel for the respondents, Shri Jain, has drawn my attention to Rule 18 of the Tenancy Rules as amended by notification No. 8722-R-53/3- Spl., dated 31.12.1953. This rule deals with suits under Section 45 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and has no application to revision petitions which do not arise out of suits under Section 45 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. In fact, the Financial Commissioner can Act suo motu and revise the orders and proceedings of the subordinate authorities and in such an event the question of filing certified copies would not arise. Even a revision petition by the party would be unnecessary as was held in Labh Dev V. Bal Kishan, 1933 AIR(Lah) 327. Moreover, the revision petition once having been admitted could not be dismissed for a formal defect and the Financial Commissioner, having called for the original records, could have disposed of the revision petition by reference to the records of the case. In this connection, attention could be drawn to J.P. Ohja V. R.R. Tandon, 1962 AIR(All) 485 which follows a Full Bench decision of that Court in Om Parkash V. Moti Lal, 1958 AIR(All) 409. A similar view has been taken by the Financial Commissioner in Gugan Singh V. Ram Pal, Lahore Law Times (Vol. XLI) 1962 Revenue Rulings 60, as follows :-