(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated the 12th June, 1964 of the Financial Commissioner, Planning (Punjab) (Annexure 'D' to the petition) passed in exercise of his powers of revision under Section 39(3) of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Act'). By the impugned order the orders passed by the prescribed authority were set aside and an allotment of surplus area made in favour of the petitioners was cancelled on the grounds, inter alia, that the prescribed authority (Naib Teahsdildar Agrarian) had relied upon evidence which was legally inadmissible and had, therefore, committed a material irregularity justifying interference in revision.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that Dhian Singh son of Jiwan Singh owned a good deal of land out of which the land in dispute was declared as surplus area. His four sons, petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and Bharpur Singh since deceased, applied for allotment of 5 standard acres each from this surplus area of their father alleging that they were 'workers' as defined in Section 2(1)(h) of the Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1960 (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Scheme') framed under Section 32-J of the Act. This application was allowed by the prescribed authority, namely, the Naib Tehsildar Agrarian on the 30th October, 1961, vide his order, Annexure 'A' to the petition. The four sons of the deceased landowner were jointly allotted 20 standard acres in equal shares out of the surplus area of their father. Bharpur Singh had since died and is being represented in these proceedings by his widow and children who are petitioner Nos. 5 to 8.
(3.) I may appear that the prescribed authority reviewed his order dated the 30th October, 1961 and allowed only Dharshan Singh, petitioner No. 3, to retain 5 standard acres of land out of the surplus area and that he cancelled the allotment in favour of the other three sons of the deceased landowner. This order was passed after hearing the counsel for petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. The landowner Agrarian also examined the revenue record and other evidence produced by one of the petitioners and was of the opinion that the Nehia Khasra Girdawari produced before the Naib Tehsildar had been tampered with and could not be relied upon and that the petitioners were not 'workers' as defined in Section 2(1)(h) of the Scheme. He, therefore, forwarded the records to the Commissioner who also agreed with the Collector and recommended to the Financial Commissioner that the order passed on review by the Naib Tehsildar Mansa on the 13th March, 1963 may be set aside and that the Financial Commissioner should exercise powers of revision under Section 39(3) of the Act and send back the case to the Collector for a de novo decision in accordance with law. The impugned order has been passed by the Financial Commissioner in exercise of these powers of revision.