BIKKAR SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the orders dated 29.05.1985 (Annexure P. 1) and 12.06.1985 (Annexure P. 2) passed by Collector (Agrarian), Fazilka, order dated 07.08.1991 (Annexure P. 3) passed by Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and order dated 01.06.1993 passed by Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that surplus area case of big landlord -respondent No. 3 was determined by the Collector under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1973 vide order dated 29.05.1985 (Annexure P. 1) whereby 12.1768 hectares of first quality land were declared surplus after giving benefits available to him. After declaration of surplus area, Collector (Agrarian) directed respondent No. 3 to make his selection by mentioning khasra numbers which he wanted to retain with him and which he wanted to put in the surplus pool. But respondent No. 3 failed to do so. Exercising the powers suo motu, Collector (Agrarian) passed order and issued notice under Section 9(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act for taking possession in favour of the State vide order dated 12.06.1985 (Annexure P. 2). Petitioners claiming to be sitting and continuous tenants under respondent No. 3 -big landlord since 1970 -71 over the land measuring 40 kanals 8 marlas comprised in rectangle No. 116 Killa No. 13/2(4 -4) 14 to 17 (8 -0) each and 18/1 (4 -4) situated in the area of village Kala Tibba, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur, preferred an appeal against the orders passed by the Collector (Agrarian) before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.08.1991 (Annexure P. 3). They also preferred revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 01.06.1993 (Annexure P. 4). Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that petitioners are sitting tenants over the land in dispute which has been declared surplus by the Collector (Agrarian). As they have been sitting tenants since 1970 -71, they are entitled to protection and retain the land as tenants' permissible area. The orders passed by the authorities are against law and evidence on record. The orders passed by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner are not sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioners made reference to the extract from khasra girdawri from 1970 -71 till 1992 -93 (Annexure P. 5) to contend that they are in continuous possession over the suit land.