KHEMI BAI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shrimati Khemi Bai 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 Collector, dated 19th April, 1963, by which application of Gauri Sahai, respondent No. 3, under Section 22 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the acquisition of proprietary rights in respect of the land in dispute, was allowed, as well as the order of the Financial Commissioner, dated 30th April, 1964, affirming the order of the Collector (copies Annexures 'B' and 'C' to the petition respectively).

(2.) It was contended by Mr. Roop Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner, that Gauri Sahai respondent failed to prove his continuous possession for the prescribed period over the land in dispute, that there was no entry in his favour from the years 1943 to 1948 in the revenue records, that from this fact that prior to and after that period the tenant was in possession of the land in dispute, the continuity of possession could not be presumed and that in this manner the revenue authorities had fallen in error which was patent on the face of the record. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I am of the view that there is no merit in this contention of the learned counsel. The Collector, after considering the circumstances of this case, found as a fact that continuity of possession should be presumed in the instant case. The Collector has given cogent reasons for arriving at that finding and before me that finding of fact could not successfully be assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. No material was placed on the basis of which it could be held that the finding arrived at by the Collector was patently erroneous. Such a finding is generally not interfered with by this Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. In this view of the matter I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel.

(3.) It was next contended by Mr. Roop Chand that Gauri Sahai, respondent-tenant did not occupy the land for a period of 12 years in the terms of Section 7-A(2) of the Act as the land was an evacuee property and according to Section 21 of the Act, the provisions of Chapter IV (Acquisition of Proprietary Rights by Tenants), would not apply. I am afraid, there is no merit in this contention of the learned counsel. Section 21 of the Act reads as under :-