MANSA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mansa and Hira appellants who are the grandsons of one Tulsi are landowners in village Maina, Tehsil and District Rohtak. The Collector of Rohtak by his order dated the 18th of April, 1960, declared 26 standard acres and one and a half units of land to be surplus in their hands after allowing the permissible area of 30 standard acres to each of these two appellants. Against the said order, an appeal was taken to the Commissioner which was dismissed with the observation that in case the appellants had any documentary proof on the points raised, they should put the same up before the Collector for the purpose of reviewing his order. Consequently a review application was moved before the Collector which, however, did not find favour with him and was dismissed by his order dated the 20th of March, 1963, whereby the previous order was upheld. An appeal against the above-said order was instituted on the 8th of July, 1963, before the Commissioner who, however, treated it as a revision petition and finding no force therein dismissed it on the 25th of November, 1964. Against this order a further revision was taken to the Financial Commissioner which also was dismissed by the order dated the 27th of August, 1965 (Annexure 'E' to the writ petition). This order was impugned by way of writ petition before the learned Single Judge who dismissed the same. Against this order the present appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed.

(2.) Before the learned Single Judge the sole contention raised was that some of the land held by two of the appellants above-said was recorded as Banjar Qadim in revenue records and that the Collector had erred in taking the said land into consideration for the purpose of declaring the surplus area. This was contended to be contrary to the rule laid down by the Division Bench in Nemi Chand Jain v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and another, 1964 66 PunLR 278. The above contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge primarily on the ground that this plea was not taken before the Courts below and he declined to interfere with the order of the Financial Commissioner refusing to entertain a fresh point in revision.

(3.) The only point which has been raised in support of this appeal by Mr. H.L. Sarin is that the learned Single Judge had erred in the exercise of his discretion by refusing to allow the raising of the point regarding the Banjar Qadim land. It was sought to be contended that after the declaration of the law in Nemi Chand Jain's case, the revenue authorities were bound in law to reopen the surplus area matter in the case of the appellants. We are unable to accede to the contention raised by Mr. Sarin. The learned Single Judge whilst repelling the argument before him observed as follows after referring to the rule in Nemi Chand Jain's case -