NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR AGRARIAN REFORMS SANGRUR ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenged the determination of his surplus area by filing a revision petition before the Commissioner, Patiala Division. On March 30, 1964, when this revision petition was fixed for hearing, the petitioner could not attend the Court and the petition was dismissed in default of hearing.

(2.) His application for restoration was dismissed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, on the ground that a revision petition dismissed in default of hearing could not be restored.

(3.) In Mallu Ram v. The Financial Commissioner and others, 1969 PunLJ 146, R.S. Narula (as the learned Chief Justice then was), held that a revision petition dismissed in default of hearing could be restored by the authority hearing the revision. In any event, the application for restoration could have been treated as a fresh revision petition.