PRITHU Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (T) PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were holding land as tenants under respondent No. 5. On June 25, 1971, respondent No. 5 filed an application under Section 9(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act), for ejectment of the petitioners from the land comprising their tenancy. The application was made in form K-1 though it was not strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules inasmuch as the facts mentioned therein had not been verified by respondent No. 5. The ground on which the relief was claimed was that respondent No. 5 was a small landowner. The petitioners contested their liability to ejectment asserting that respondent No. 5 was not a small landowner and that they had installed a tubewell in the land and had made further improvements on the same. The Assistant Collector First Grade vide his order dated September 27, 1971, dismissed this application by holding that respondent No. 5 had not proved himself to be a small landowner. Against this order, respondent No. 5 went in appeal. On the memorandum of appeal the office of the Collector reported on November 9, 1971, that the appeal was barred by time and yet the Collector entertained the appeal and reversed the order pased by the Assistant Collector First Grade and remanded the case for the purpose of determining the compensation payable to the petitioners in respect of the improvements made by them. Against this order, the petitioners went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur, who vide his order dated April 24, 1973, remanded the case and ordered that respondent No. 5 be allowed to amend his form K-1. It was further ordered that in case the form was amended, the parties should be allowed an opportunity of leading further evidence on the point whether respondent No. 5 was a small landowner or not and the case be re-decided in the light of these findings. The revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, vide his order dated July 12, 1973, on the ground that "no prejudice appears to have been caused to both the parties who may prove their respective claims before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Jullundur, on all the points". The tenant-petitioners have challenged the order dated December 27, 1971, passed by the Collector, Jullundur, the order dated April 24, 1973, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, and the order dated July 12, 1973, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, in this petition.

(2.) Before the Additional Commissioner, three points were specifically argued. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the application had not been made in proper form, the appeal filed before the Collector was barred by time and respondent No. 5 had not proved himself to be a small landowner. On these points the observations made by the Additional Commissioner may be noticed. On the question of formal defect in form K-1, she observed as under :-

(3.) Obviously, on all the points argued before her, the Additional Commissioner found in favour of the petitioners. It has now to be seen whether the order of remand causes any prejudice to the petitioners or not, because it has been argued by Mr. Sarin, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5, that the determination of the question whether the appeal had been filed within the permissible time or not was within the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act and it was not open to this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of certiorari for correcting an erroneous order of the domestic Tribunal on the point of limitation. In support of this submission, the learned counsel has relied upon Ebrahim Aboobakar and another V. Custodian General of Evacuee Property, New Delhi, 1952 AIR(SC) 319. In this very authority it has been laid down that certiorari should not issue in a case in which the petitioner has failed to establish that manifest injustice has been done to him.