BABU SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Rehmat Ullah was the owner of land measuring 54 bighas 13 biswas situate in village Banjoli Khurd in tehsil Malerkotla, district Sangrur. Out of this on 11th of January, 1958 he sold about 18 bighas comprising Khasra Nos. 446 to 448, besides the abadi land, to Babu Singh, petitioner, for Rs. 7,000/-. On 21st of May, 1958 Ibrahim, respondent No. 5 made an application to the prescribed authority under Section 22 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) for the acquisition of proprietary rights in respect of the entire land owned by Rehmat Ullah on the ground that he was a tenant of the same and was in its cultivating possession since a long time. This application was opposed by Rehmat Ullah and Babu Singh mainly on the ground that he was not a tenant of the land in dispute within the meaning of the Act. On 4th of September, 1959, the prescribed authority accepted this application and conferred proprietary rights on respondent No. 5. Against this decision, the petitioner and Rehmat Ullah filed an appeal before the Collector, Malerkotla, on the grounds that Ibrahim did not fall under the definition of the word 'tenant' as given in the Act, that this land was reserved by Rehmat Ullah for his personal cultivation, that suits for ejectment and arrears of rent were already pending against the said Ibrahim and he was not shown in cultivating possession for 12 years as required by law and then Rehmat Ullah was a physically infirm person. On these grounds, it was urged that no proprietary rights could be conferred in respect of this land upon Ibrahim. These contentions were negatived by the Collector who on 5-5-1962 dismissed their appeal. Thereafter a revision was filed before the Revenue Minister under Section 32-D(4) of the Act. This revision was transferred to the Financial Commissioner who on 2nd of July, 1963 dismissed the same, on the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that it had not been properly presented. The petition for revision to the Financial Commissioner should have been made under Section 39(3) of the Act, whereas it had been made to the Revenue Minister under Section 32-D(4) which was only concerned with the declaration of surplus area. A review petition was then filed before the learned Financial Commissioner alongwith another revision petition against the order of the Collector. Both these were disposed of by the learned Financial Commissioner on 25-4-1965 by the impugned order. He came to the conclusion that there was no valid ground for reviewing his previous order. He, however, found that on merits also, the petitioners had no case, because both the prescribed authority and the Collector had come to a concurrent finding of fact that Ibrahim was a 'tenant' within the meaning assigned to it under Section 22 of the Act and that the land was not in the self-cultivation of Rehmat Ullah. The learned Financial Commissioner found that on evidence these findings, had been correctly given and they being findings of fact could not be interfered with in revision. That led to the filing of the present petition, on 2nd of July, 1965, under Article 226 of the Constitution by Babu Singh.

(2.) After hearing the counsel for the parties I am of the view that there is no merit in this writ petition. The learned Financial Commissioner has affirmed the findings of the prescribed authority and the Collector on the two questions namely that Ibrahim was a tenant within the meaning of the Act and that the land was not in self-cultivation of Rehmat Ullah. From the order of the learned Financial Commissioner, it is apparent that the questions now being argued before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner were not raised before him. As the impugned order stands, there is no scope for interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radha Krishana and others, 1964 AIR(SC) 477 , -

(3.) Even otherwise also on the arguments addressed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that there is no force in this petition. Three main contentions have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, -