SHIV CHARAN Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONERHARYANACHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A see-saw of decision in various Revenue Courts culminated with the final order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, (Copy Annexure 'E') which has gone against the petitioners who have challenged the same in the present Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is needless to recapitulate the history of the litigation between the parties, which has been narrated in the earlier part of the Writ Petition. It would, however, suffice to mention that the Assistant Collector First Grade, Palwal decreed the suit of the petitioners under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, and ordered the ejectment of respondents 3 to 9 from the land in dispute as per order Copy Annexure 'A'. The respondents preferred an appeal against the said order before the Collector, Gurgaon, who accepted the same and reversed the order of the Assistant Collector. The petitioners followed the matter before the Commissioner, Ambala, who again accepted their appeal and while reversing the decision of the Collector, affirmed that of the Assistant Collector which was in favour of the petitioners. The respondents, however, went up in Revision under Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act read with Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, and the Financial Commissioner accepted their Revision Petition, with the result that he set aside the order of the Commissioner and affirmed that of the Collector. The petitioners have now approached before this Court to impugn the aforesaid order of the Financial Commissioner.

(3.) The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to reverse the order passed by the Commissioner by virtue of the powers vested in him under Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, which powers are equivalent to those contained under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. The argument is that there was no lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Commissioner to hear the appeal and the findings given by him in the appeal could not be disturbed by the Financial Commissioner. The learned counsel places reliance upon Dhaunkal v. Man Kauri. 1970 Pun LJ 402(FB) in this behalf.