PREM SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application under Section 22 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act), by tenants-respondent Nos. 4 and 5, was allowed by the prescribed authority and the order was upheld upto the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab. These orders were challenged by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The writ petition was heard by Bains, J., on august 3, 1979. Keeping in view the importance of the two questions of law, which had arisen in the case, the same have been referred for adjudication by this Bench :

(2.) In order to appreciate the legal implications of the points involved, emuneration of relevant facts, in brief, is essential. The landlord-petitioner is a displaced person and owned 68 standard acres and 10 units of agricultural land out of which, under the provisions of the Act, 24 standard acres and 14 units of land was declared surplus by the authorities. The landlord-petitioner filed an eviction application against respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who were tenants on some of the land, alleging that they were in arrears of rent and also that the land under their tenancy, formed part of his reserved area. This application had a chequered career, but was ultimately dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur, by his order dated December 1, 1962 (Annexure B), on the ground that a part of this land had not been reserved by the landlord-petitioner.

(3.) The tenants-respondent Nos. 4 and 5, on their part, had filed an application to secure proprietary rights on the land under their tenancy, under Section 22 of the Act, before the prescribed authority on April 25, 1960, which was dismissed on merits and the said order was upheld upto the High Court. The order of the High Court was passed on September 7, 1964. Subsequent thereto, second application under Section 22 was again filed before the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Phagwara, some time in 1965. This was contested by the landlord-petitioner not only on merits that the tenants did not fulfil the conditions, but also on the preliminary objection that the first application having been dismissed on merits the decision in that application had become final and the second application was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. The objections of the landlord-petitioner did not find favour with the Assistant Collector who allowed the application vide his order dated December 15, 1965 (Annexure C), and it was held that the tenants were entitled to acquire proprietary rights in the land. The amount of compensation payable by the tenants was also fixed. The appeal by the landlord-petitioner before the Collector also failed, vide order of the Collector dated June 22, 1966 (Annexure D). Revision petition under Section 39 of the Act against the order of the Collector (Annexure D), was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, by his order dated June 15, 1967 (Annexure E). The plea of constructive res judicata by the landlord-petitioner was negatived by the learned Financial Commissioner on the ground that the second application by the tenants was based on some new grounds which had not been taken up in the previous application.