CHANDU RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has arisen out of the surplus proceedings of the land of the petitioner. It was averred in the petition that the petitioner also inherited the land of his brother Ram Chand who died on 6th December, 1950. The Collector declared his land measuring 41.64 ordinary acres which are equal to 16.04 standard acres as surplus on 15th May, 1962. The petitioner made an application on 13th December, 1964, before the Collector that he may be permitted to retain his permissible area of 60 ordinary acres. The Collector forwarded the case to the Commissioner who allowed the Collector to review the case of the petitioner. The Collector then vide his order dated 8th September, 1965 (Annexure 'A') modified the earlier order and declared 81.37 ordinary acres as the surplus area. Dissatisfied by the order of the Collector the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner which was dismissed as time-barred. He filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner which was also dismissed. It is in these circumstances that the present writ has been filed.

(2.) The only contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his banjar qadim and ghair mumkin land has been included while determining the surplus area. In this case, as is evident, this point was never raised before the Collector. If there was some land which does not answer the definition of land, then it should have been taken before the Collector as has been held by the Supreme Court in Amar Surjit Singh v. The State of Punjab and another,1968 PunLJ 297. In that case the point regarding the land being banjar qadim etc. was not taken before the Collector. In the present case also, no such point was raised and it was only after the pronouncement of the case in Nemi Chand Jain v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and another, 1963 PunLJ 137 that an appeal was made. In the return filed by Adhiapak Singh, Under Secretary to Government, Haryana, it is stated that it is not proved on the file that the land is not used for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture and that the banjar land of the petitioner is covered by the definition of 'land' as given in the Act itself for the purposes of surplus area. This condition has nowhere been fulfilled in the present case. Moreover, the petitioner never raised this point when his surplus area was declared. No other point is urged.

(3.) In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.