MADHO SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Madho Singh has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order of the Assistant Collector, Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, dated the 25th January, 1966, 19th April, 1966, 2nd August, 1967 and 8th February, 1968 (Copies Annexures 'A', 'B', 'C', 'C-1' 'D' and 'D-1' to the petition) respectively. The facts of this case may briefly be stated thus :-

(2.) Written Statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, by Sundal, respondent No. 2, in the shape of an affidavit in which material allegations made in the petition have been controverted.

(3.) It was contended by Mr. Sarin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to deal with the legality and propriety of the proceedings relating to the declaration of the surplus area of the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act, that the revenue authorities assumed jurisdiction which was not vested in them by going into the question of the legality of the surplus proceedings and that the impugned orders, in this situation, could not legally be sustained. On the other hand it was contended by Mr. U.D. Gaur, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 that this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner should not be allowed to be raised at the time of arguments as on this aspect of the matter no plea has been taken by the petitioner in this writ petition.