JINDU RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent and is directed against the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting the petition of the appellant under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying that the order of the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner and the Special Collector, declaring the Banjar Qadim land of the petitioner as 'land' within the meaning of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act as surplus, be quashed. The learned Single Judge rejected the petition on the short ground that the question whether the land was Banjar Qadim or not had not been raised before the relevant authorities, namely, the Special Collector and the Commissioner. It is clear that the point was raised in revision before Financial Commissioner but he declined to entertain it because the point had not been canvassed before the Special Collector and Commissioner.

(2.) It is now common ground that the land in dispute is Banjar Qadim. In fact in the return filed by the State this fact is admitted. The only ground on which the judgment of the learned Single Judge is sought to be sustained by the learned Deputy Advocate-General is that the plea that the .land in dispute measuring O. 14-3/4 Standard Acre is Banjar Qadim was not raised at the relevant time, that is, before the Special Collector and the Commissioner. There is no doubt that this is so. The first time in the entire course of the proceedings, the contention was raised before the Financial Commissioner in revision. However, if a reference is made to rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, which is in the following terms, there is no manner of doubt that the entire material, as to the nature of the land, was before the Special Collector :-