KARNAIL SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were allotted land under the Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1960, framed under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Surjit Singh respondent made a complaint in 1966 to the effect that the allotment of the land was wrongly made in favour of the petitioners. The Prescribed Authority sought permission to review the orders of allotment passed in 1962 from the Collector who allowed the review on 25.6.1970. This order of the Collector was set aside in appeal by the learned Commissioner and the case was remanded. The Collector again allowed the review by order dated 16.3.1971. The case of the petitioners was that when the allotment was made in their favour in 1962, there was no provision in the said Scheme authorising any authority to review the orders passed from time to time. Clause 14 of the Scheme laying down the procedure in regard to appeal, review and revision was incorporated in the Scheme on 4.6.1965. It was, therefore,. contended before the learned Financial Commissioner that the order allowing the review was without jurisdiction. This contention was repelled by the learned Financial Commissioner and thus the orders of the Collector, that of the learned Commissioner and that of the learned Financial Commissioner, copies Annexures A, B and D, respectively are sought to be impugned in this petition.

(2.) In Nar Singh v. The State of Punjab and Others, 1980 RajdhaniLR 258, this Court held that paragraph 14 added to the Pepsu Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme, 1960, was not retrospective. The said provision was added by notification dated 4.6.1965. It was, therefore, held that the review of orders, which had become final prior to 4.6.1965, was illegal and, therefore, without jurisdiction. The ratio of this judgment aptly applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The allotment in the present case was made in 1962 before para 14 was added to the Scheme. The provisions of para 14 of the Scheme had been applied retrospectively in the present case, which could not be done.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.