LAWS(P&H)-1971-1-2

JAISI RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE PUNJAB

Decided On January 08, 1971
JAISI RAM Appellant
V/S
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of three connected Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 299, 300 and 485 of 1970. It is conceded by the counsel for the parties that the decision in letters Patent Appeal No. 299 of 1970 will govern the other appeals as well.

(2.) JAISI Ram was the owner of the land in dispute. He filed four writ petitions (Nos. 2361 to 2364 of 1963) under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution against his tenants on four different parcels of land. His prayer was that the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, conferring proprietary rights on the tenants under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, hereinafter called the act, in each case be quashed. All these petitions came up for hearing before C. G. Suri, J. and since the questions of law and fact involved in them were similar and the Revenue Authorities had also taken up those cases together, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petitions by one judgment. All those petitions were dismissed with the result that Jaisi Ram filed these four Letters Patent Appeals. One of them, namely, Letters Patent Appeal No. 483 of 1970, which was against the judgment in Civil Writ No. 2362 of 1963, has admittedly abated. The other three Letters patent Appeals viz. Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 299, 300 and 485 of 1970, which have arisen out of the Writ Petition Nos. 2364, 2361 and 2363 of 1963, respectively, are being disposed of by this judgment.

(3.) IN Civil Writs Nos. 2361 and 2363 of 1963, the learned Financial Commissioner had rejected the land-owner's revision petitions summarily on the ground that the copies of the orders of the Collector and the Prescribed Authority had not been filed along with them. Regarding this matter, the finding of the learned Single judge was that there was no provision in the Act or in the rules framed thereunder requiring the filing of such copies with the revision petitions. On this point, the learned Judge observed: