GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Gurcharan Singh claims to be in possession as tenant of land belonging to Gurdial Singh respondent No. 9 in village Bugran, Sub-Tehsil Phul, District Bhatinda. A part of the land held by Gurdial Singh was declared surplus and it was allotted to Nihal Singh, Gainda Ram, Kaka Singh, Chhota Singh, Jhaggar Singh and Zora Singh (respondent Nos. 3 to 8) under the orders of the Prescribed Authority (Naib Tehsildar, Phul, District Bhatinda) respondent No. 2, dated the 25th of January, 1965. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on the 15th of April, 1965, which was accepted by the Collector (Agrarian), Bhatinda on 5th of August, 1965, vide his order which forms Annexure 'A' to the petition, and the case was remanded for deciding the question of allotment afresh. Against this order, the respondents Nihal Singh, Gainda Ram and others, to whom the surplus land of Gurdial Singh had been allotted, preferred a petition for revision which was accepted by the Financial Commissioner (Planning), Punjab, on 5th of November, 1965. A copy of his order forms Annexure 'B' to the petition. The learned Financial Commissioner has held that the petitioner's claim to allotment of surplus land of Gurdial Singh could not be entertained as he was not a tenant as defined in paragraph 2(1)(g) of the Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme, 1960, nor was his application for allotment made within the prescribed period. He further found that his appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority was also barred by time and the Collector (Agrarian) was thus wrong in accepting it and remanding the case for fresh decision. It is for quashing this order of the Financial Commissioner that Gurcharan Singh has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) In assailing the validity of the impugned order of the Financial Commissioner, dated the 5th of November, 1965, Mr. H. L. Sarin, appearing for the petitioner has argued :-

(3.) Though the learned Financial Commissioner has held that the petitioner's appeal to the Collector (Agrarian) could not be entertained as it was barred by time, learned counsel for the respondents has not attempted to defend this finding for the obvious reason that under Section 39 of the PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 13 of 1955, the Collector has the authority to entertain an appeal after the prescribed period of thirty days, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented for sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. From the order of the Collector (Annexure 'A' to the petition), it is evident that the question of limitation was raised before the Collector and on due consideration of the same, he treated the appeal to be within time holding that there was sufficient cause for the delay which occurred in preferring it.