HAR PHUL Vs. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises the question of the interpretation of Section 39 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (No. 13 of 1955).

(2.) THE sale of agricultural land situated in the erstwhile Pepsu State effected by Amrao Singh, Respondent No. 3, was pre -empted by the Petitioner Harphool. In execution of that decree granted by the Subordinate Judge, Mohindergarh, Harphool ejected the tenants on paying them Rs. 1950 -8 -6 as determined by that Court. Subsequent thereto, on 20th July, 1958, the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Ordinance, 1958, was promulgated inserting Section 8 -A in the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (No. 13 of 1955). Under this new provision the ejected tenants got option of repurchasing from the pre -emptor or to be put back in possession and become tenants under the pre -emptor. The tenants, Rehta and Fateh Singh, Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, availed of this concession and applied to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Mohindergarh, for repurchase of the land in dispute on payment of Rs. 1950 -8 -6.

(3.) HARPHOOL thereupon filed an appeal to the Collector but the same was dismissed on the short ground that no such appeal was competent. A revision against this order was taken to the Financial Commissioner but it also met the same fate. It is for setting aside this order of the learned Financial Commissioner, dated 24th March, 1960, and that of the Collector, that Harphool has applied under Article 227 of the Constitution.