GORDHAN Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ is directed against the order of the learned Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana, dated 26th November, 1969 (Annexure 'G' to the petition)".

(2.) The facts as found by the Financial Commissioner after recording the statement of the Patwari, at the request of both the parties, are that Jagdish Chander, respondent, was a minor when he inherited the land from his father and through his uncle put in a reservation form as provided under Section 5 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), and rules made thereunder. Under the rules once such a reservation form is submitted to the Patwari, the Patwari has to do the verification and then the surplus area is to be declared. This verification was not done by the Patwari. The tenant filed an application for purchase under Section 18 of the aforesaid Act. The plea taken on behalf of the landlord was that the area sought to be purchased formed part of the reserved area and, therefore, permissible area. Before the subordinate Courts there was some dispute as to whether the entry in Roznamcha Waqiati regarding receipt of this form was genuine or not. But after recording the statement of the Patwari who produced the Roznamcha, the Financial Commissioner has given a clear finding that the form was, it fact, submitted on the date on which it is purported to have been submitted. In view of this, the argument that the reservation was not in order, was rejected and the case was remanded and it was directed that the revenue authorities should ensure compliance with the requirements of Rules 5 and 6 of the said qua verification and then decide the purchase case afresh on merits.

(3.) In the writ petition the contention was that till verification is done there is no reservation in the eye of law and consequently the mere submission of the form by the landowner is no compliance with the provisions of Section 5 and Rule 5. Reliance for this was placed on the observations made in Gurbax Singh v. The State of Punjab and another, 1967 PunLJ 31. In that case some sort of application was given under Section 5. Subsequently, permissible area was retained under Section 5-B which applies only to cases where no reservation is made under Section 5 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that selection made under Section 5-B was in order because there was no reservation earlier. Rule 5 which was reproduced in para 5 of the judgment of the Supreme Court, above mentioned, is to the following effect :-