BAKSHI RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bakshi Ram and others through present petition filed by them under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ in the nature of Certiorari so as to quash the orders dated 23.6.1988 passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab dismissing their revision petition as also order dated 14.5.1991 again passed by the Financial Commissioner dismissing the application for reviewing the order dated 23.6.1988.

(2.) The facts of the case reveal that the petitioners are the legal heirs of one Anant Ram who was a tenant of a big landowner. It is pleaded that Anant Ram was an old tenant sitting on the land of Shri Shiv Ram. Some area in the hands of Shiv Ram, landowner including Khasra No. 68/20/1 measuring 5 Kanals 12 Marlas was declared surplus under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. It is pleaded that Anant Ram being the sitting tenant on the land comprised in Khasra No. 68/20/1 was entitled to get the said land included in his permissible area being protected under the Act of 1953. However, the big landowner with a view to evade the utilization of the declared surplus area and to deprive Anant Ram of his rights of tenancy surreptitiously transferred by sale-deed the said land sometimes in the year 1976 to one Shri Bachittar Singh who further sold it to respondents No. 2 to 4. The big landowner got an order passed in his favour on 24.6.1976 from the Collector Agrarian Anandpur Sahib declaring him to be a small landowner under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 . It is pleaded that while getting the order aforesaid he did not disclose to the Collector Agrarian that the land in dispute had been already declared surplus and was under the tenancy of Anant Ram for a long time. No notice of the proceedings culminating in the order aforesaid, was ever issued to Anant Ram. The Collector, however, while passing orders dated 24.6.1976 made it clear that the area of the landowner which was already declared surplus under the Act of 1953 would remain intact. Anant Ram thus moved an application on 6.8.1981 for the allotment of surplus area comprised in the khasra number referred to above. The Collector Agrarian before whom the matter came up vide order dated 16.9.1982 dismissed the application of Anant Ram on the ground that the application for allotment should have been moved within one year of the enforcement of Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 . Aggrieved, Anand Ram filed an appeal through his son before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala as by that time Anant Ram had become mentally unsound. The appeal was, however, dismissed on 9.11.1983. Still aggrieved, a revision was preferred before the Financial commissioner which too, was dismissed on 23.6.1988. This order was sought to be reviewed but the application moved to obtain the said relief was also dismissed on 14.5.1991. It is these orders, as indicated in the earlier part of judgment that have been challenged by way of present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contends that the authorities dealing with the matter failed to consider that the right of sitting tenant, be it under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act or udner Punjab Land Reforms Act, is sacrosanct. While dealing with the case, the authorities rather chose to get into the technicalities than on merits of the case. The application filed by petitioner-tenants was misconstrued as it was never mentioned therein that the same was for the purchase under Section 15(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act. On the other hand, it was for allotment of land. Further, the limitation for making application within a specified period was not mandatory and in any case narrow interpretation of the provisions of Utilisation of surplus Area Scheme, 1973, should not have been adopted by the authorities, contends the learned counsel.