ANKAURI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 107 to 109, 111 and 126 of 1967, as common questions of law and fact arise in all of them. All these appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, are directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the writ petitions filed by the appellant were dismissed. I am briefly stating the facts of L.P.A. No. 107 of 1967.

(2.) Smt. Ankauri widow of Prema, appellant, owned 60.68 Ordinary Acres (equivalent to 18.96 Standard Acres) of land on the 15th April, 1953, when the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force. This entire area was gifted by her in favour of Baldev Singh adopted son of Prema in December, 1953. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 acquired occupancy tenancy rights in 91.96 Ordinary Acres (equivalent to 26.74 Standard Acres) of agricultural land and became its owner on 8th January, 1954, under the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act. In the year 1961, the Collector. Surplus Area, Sirsa, respondent No. 1, started proceedings under the provisions of the Act for determining surplus area held by petitioner No. 1, and by his order dated the 25th September, 1961, he declared 91.86 Ordinary Acres (equivalent to 28.71 Standard Acres) as surplus area in the hands of appellant No. 1. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Collector, Smt. Ankauri, appellant No. 1, filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, on the 30th July, 1962. The revision petition put in by her before respondent No. 3, also met the same fate on the 19th July, 1963. It is the legality and correctness of the aforesaid orders of the revenue officers that were challenged by the appellants by way of writ petition, which as earlier observed, was dismissed by P.D. Sharma, J. (as he then was) on the 19th December. 1966.

(3.) The main ground urged before us by the learned counsel for the appellants, was that the impugned order of the Collector, Surplus, having been passed without issuing any notice to Baldev Singh, appellant No. 2, the transferes is illegal and without jurisdiction and on that short ground is liable to be set aside.