GURDIAL SINGH Vs. DIWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gurdial Singh has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, respondent No. 2, dated 13th September, 1965 (copy Annexure 'E' to the petition).

(2.) The only contention that has been raised before me by Mr. Majithia, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to set aside the orders of the Commissioner and the Collector in exercise of his power under Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, as the power under that Section is exercisable only in respect of those orders which suffer from the exercise of jurisdiction not vested by law or that there has been any failure to exercise jurisdiction so vested or while passing those orders the officers have acted in exercise of their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Dhaunkal v. Man Kauri and another, 1970 RajdhaniLR 376 On the other hand it is contended by Mr. J.K. Khosla, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, that the learned Commissioner and the Collector did not consider the oral evidence, that their decision is based solely on the ground that no receipt was produced by the tenant evidencing the payment of rent and that the learned Financial Commissioner was justified in setting aside those orders as material evidence was not considered.

(3.) So far as the facts are concerned, there is no dispute. The petitioner filed an application under Section 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, on 18th October, 1962, for the ejectment of respondent No. 1 on the ground that he had failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause and that he had failed to cultivate the land in the manner or to the extent customary in the locality in which the land is situated. The Assistant Collector, First Grade rejected the application vide his order dated 8th August, 1963. On appeal by the landowner, the decision of the Assistant Collector was reversed by the Collector vide his order dated 31st December, 1963. The tenant filed a second appeal before the Commissioner, but did not succeed. On revision by the tenant, the learned Financial Commissioner restored the decision of the Assistant Collector, First Grade and set aside the orders of the Commissioner and the Collector. It is in these circumstances that the present petition has been filed by the landowner.