KARAM SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two writ petition Nos. 2218 and 2412 of 1964, one filed by Karam Singh and the other by Karam Singh and three others as landlords against two different sets of tenants for their ejectment in respect of an aggregate area of 2.8 standard acres.

(2.) In both cases, the orders of ejectment had been set aside in revision petition by the Financial Commissioner and the landlords have sought the intervention of this Court in certiorari proceedings to quash his order passed on 26th of September, 1964. Ejectment of the tenants was sought on the ground that the land had been reserved by the landlords. The learned Financial Commissioner on a perusal of the evidence reached the conclusion that the reservation had not been proved by the evidence which has been adduced by the landlords. It is of interest that all the four landowners were examined in surplus area proceedings on 1st of September, 1960, and none of them stated that he had made any reservation or selection. The forms which have to be filled in respect of surplus areas also pointed to the same conclusion. The authorities, however, reached the conclusion that reservation had been made on the basis of a report made by Kartar Singh that he had reserved 120 standard acres on 14th of October, 1953. The Financial Commissioner observed that there was no indication how the landlord was reserving something over and above 30 standard acres which is the permissible area. It is pointed out that the reservation was on behalf of the four landowners but joint reservation according to rules is not permissible and the Financial Commissioner reached the conclusion that the finding of the Collector could not be sustained especially when Kartar Singh had an opportunity of claiming on 1st of September, 1960, that he had made such a reservation in 1953, but he did not make any such statement. In the words of the Financial Commissioner, the silence of Kartar Singh "can only mean that the subsequent plea about the reservation having been effected in 1953 is spurious and must be rejected". The finding is one of fact and is based on appraisal of evidence. It would be singularly inappropriate for this Court to examine the evidence once over again which the counsel for the petitioner read before me, I think there is no scope for interference in these petitions which fail and are dismissed with costs.