HARI CHAND Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a displaced person and was earning his livelihood by cultivating the land as a tenant under various landowners in villages Saidpura, Gulabgarh etc., but was residing in Dera Bassi town. In the first instance, he was allotted 36 bighas 8 biswas of land out of the surplus area belonging to Diwan Singh, respondent No. 5, in village Gulabgarh by the order of the Naib-Tehsildar, Agrarian, Rajpura, dated March 6, 1963. The said Diwan Singh was also a displaced person and his holding had been allotted to him by the Rehabilitation authorities. Allotment in his hands was subsequently found to be in excess and thus, was cancelled. As a consequence, the allotment of land made to the petitioner as a resettled tenant also stood cancelled. Subsequently, land measuring 36 bighas 8 biswas situated in village Saidpura, out of the holding of Shri Jitender Singh of village Saidpura, was allotted to the petitioner as a resettled tenant and its possession was delivered to him in parts. Possession of part of the land was delivered to him on October 24, 1964, and of the remaining land on July 11, 1965.

(2.) Some complaints were filed against this allotment of land in favour of the petitioner on the ground that he was not an eligible tenant under the Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme, 1960 as framed under Section 32-J of the PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Scheme and the Act, respectively). The Collector, Agrarian, coming to the prima facie conclusion that the order of allotment needed re-consideration and as such review, recommended to the Secretary to the Government, by his memo, dated May 27, 1964, to take action regarding the cancellation of the said order of allotment. As the Government came to the conclusion that no action could be taken at the Government level in the matter, the same was referred to the Financial Commissioner. The learned Financial Commissioner, vide his order dated September 30, 1970 (P-2) held that it was for the Collector of the District concerned to take appropriate action under Section 82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (hereinafter called the Tenancy Act) if it was sought to be a fit case for review. On receipt of the same, the Collector, Agrarian, Patiala, after hearing the complainants and the petitioner, came to the conclusion by his order dated February 28, 1973 (Annexure P-3), that it was a fit case to review the order of allotment in favour of the petitioner and granted permission to review the order. That order was challenged in revision by the petitioner before the Commissioner and thereafter before the Financial Commissioner. Both the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, by their orders, Annexure P-4 dated April 25, 1973 and P-5 dated September 18, 1973, rejected the revision petitions. It is against those orders that the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the Collector, Agrarian, did not have the jurisdiction to grant permission to review the order of allotment by the prescribed authority under the Scheme at the time when the order of allotment was passed. It is argued, that the order of allotment had been passed in 1964 whereas the power to review under paragraph 14 of the Scheme was conferred by Notification of the Government dated June 4, 1965 and thus, at the time of the allotment order, this power of review was not vested in any authority. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, though the order of allotment had been passed in 1964, yet, according to the averments in writ petition, as contained in sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph 13, possession of land had been delivered on October 24, 1964 and July 11, 1965, and as such, the order of allotment cannot be held to have been passed unless the possession had been delivered, and at the time of delivery of possession, the power of review had been conferred.