CHANAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is an allottee of the surplus area of respondent No. 4 is aggrieved by the order of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) by which the surplus area was reduced from 288 standard acres to 0.42 standard acres. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Commissioner, Patiala Division exercising the powers of the State Government had rejected the appeal of respondent No. 4 viz. Balbir Singh under section 32-D(3) of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short 'the Act'). He submits that the powers of the State Government having been exercised by the Commissioner, the order of the Financial Commissioner, (Appeals) under Section 32-D(4) of the Act was wholly illegal. He has relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench in Sukhdarshan Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1979 RajdhaniLR 586and contended that the order of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) was wholly without jurisdiction. Their Lordships were pleased to hold as under

(2.) I, however, find that the learned Financial Commissioner in the present case was approached under Section 32-D and Section 39 of the Act. Section 39, inter alia, provides as under :-

(3.) Mr. Sarjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in respect of matters included in Chapter IV only the provisions of Section 32-D are applicable. He submits that Section 39(3) cannot be invoked in the present case.