KASHMIRA SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in which the facts may be shortly stated. According to the allegations in the petition the petitioner had purchased land measuring 54 bighas and 11 biswas, including khasra No. 320 min measuring 25 bighas 19 biswas in village Dhandoli Khurd, District Sangrur, for a sum of Rs 2380/- from one Sardar Gurdial Singh. It is claimed by him that he got a report in the matter recorded with the Patwari Halqa in his Roznamcha on the same day, i.e. 30th of November, 1953, and a mutation was duly entered in pursuance thereof. On 18th of July, 1959 respondent No. 1 Bhanu filed an application against Sardar Gurdial Singh for acquisition of proprietary rights in the land measuring 25 bighas and 19 biswas comprised in khasra No. 320 min under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act). This application was filed before the Naib-Tehisidar, Sangrur, who was the Prescribed Authority under the Act. On 3rd of September, 1959 respondent No. 1 made an application to the Prescribed Authority for impleading the petitioner as a party on the ground that the land had been purchased by him from Sardar Gurdial Singh. The claim of respondent No. 1 (Bhanu) was that he had been tenant for a period of twelve years on the date of enforcement of the Act" and was, therefore, entitled to acquisition of proprietary rights. The petitioner contested, his claim inter alia on the ground that he was a tenant for the last ten years only on the date of the application which was filed by him for acquisition of proprietary rights and that the petitioner was a small land-holder having less than 30 standard acres of land and that respondent No. 1 was already in possession and personal cultivation of more than 15 standard acres of land and was liable to ejectment under Section 7-A of the Act. In para 6 of the present petition it was stated that respondent No. 1 never controverted the allegations of the petitioner that he had acquired rights of ownership from Sardar Gurdial Singh and the Prescribed Authority proceeded to give a decision of the case on that admitted basis. It is unnecessary to refer to the other allegations except to state the orders which were made by the various authorities. The Prescribed Authority made an order on 11th of April, 1961 from which it is apparent that there was no contest before it with regard to the acquisition of ownership of the land in dispute by the present petitioner as claimed by him from Sardar Gurdial Singh. His other contentions, however, were not accepted and, therefore, the order was made in favour of respondent No. 1 with regard to the acquisition of proprietary rights on payment of compensation according to the instalments mentioned in the order. Before the Collector, however, in appeal a good deal of argument appears to have been addressed about the question whether the petitioner had been recorded as landowner in the Record of Rights. The Collector discussed the entry, dated the 30th of November, 1953, made in the Roznamcha Waqiati of the Patwari and said that this entry had been proved by the Patwari by his statement made on 29th of January, 1960. He then referred to the record of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority and came to the conclusion that the statement of the Patwari was recorded in the absence of the counsel for respondent No. 1 and that was the reason why there was no cross-examination at all of the Patwari on behalf of the aforesaid respondent. It has been pointed out from the order of the Collector himself, in which the proceedings of 29th of January, 1960 are reproduced that the counsel for both the parties were present. The record reads as follows :-

(2.) The petitioner went up in revision before the learned Financial Commissioner, who disposed of the same by saying -