HARI CHAND Vs. FINANCIAL COMMI , REVENUE, PB , CHD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Shri Hari Chand, assailing the order of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, dated October 28, 1976, dismissing his revision petition and seeking a writ of prohibition restraining respondent No. 3 from taking further action in pursuance to the purchase applications in respect of the land in dispute.

(2.) A broad-brush factual back-drop will help delineate contours of the forensic controversy.

(3.) Special Collector, Punjab, vide order dated 5th May, 1961 declared 50 Standard Acres 3-1/2 Units of land in the hands of Hari Chand petitioner as surplus. The petitioner owned lands in a number of villages, one of them being Ban Karanpur. 19 Standard Acres and 14-1/2 Units of land in village Ban Karanpur were declared surplus. Nathu Ram and others-tenants, filed an application before the Special Collector for review of his earlier order declaring the petitioner's land surplus. This application was allowed and an area measuring 17 Standard Acres 8-1/2 Units in village Ban Karanpur was found to be in possession of Nathu Ram and others in the year 1952-53 and as such the same was excluded from the surplus area of Hari Chand. The result was that only 2 Standard Acres of land in village Ban Karanpur were declared surplus. Hari Chand filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner. It was argued that before deciding the application for review the Special Collector had not given any notice and had not heard Hari Chand petitioner. His surplus area had been changed. The order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and was liable to be set aside. This plea did not prevail. The learned Commissioner held that the rights and interest of the petitioner had not been in any way adversely affected. Out of the land, which had already been declared surplus, the tenants' permissible area excluded. The petitioner rather gained by the order. The petitioner's revision petition was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.