SARDARA SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter in controversy in this writ petition concerns the applicability of the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) to the lands of Dera Shahi Samadhan, Patiala, some of which were in the cultivating possession of the petitioners. In January, 1963 the petitioners filed applications before the Prescribed Authority under Section 22 of the Act for acquisition of proprietary rights in the lands under their cultivating possession. These were contested by respondent No. 4 through Mahant Jagat Ram on the ground that the lands of the Dera were exempt from the provisions of the Act in view of Section 51. The Prescribed Authority respondent No. 3 allowed the claim of the petitioners holding that the Dera was not a religious or charitable institution and as such was not exempt under Section 51. This order was set aside by the Collector, Patiala (respondent No. 2) by his order dated 25th May, 1965. The Financial Commissioner confirmed the order of the Collector in revision holding that the Dera must on the finding of the Collector be held to fall within clause (iii) of the Explanation under Section 51 of the Act.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Collector did not attach proper importance to the Sanad by which muafi was granted in favour of the Dera in 1887 BK. In that sanad it was stated that the Dera was running a langar for Sadhus and Sikhs. The Collector, however, had referred to the terms of the muafi but in a consideration of the other evidence he came to the conclusion as mentioned before. It is not possible to see how this Court can interfere with the finding of the Collector which was confirmed by the Financial Commissioner.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has next urged that even if it be assumed that the finding of the Collector was correct, the Dera in question would fall only within clause (v) and not clause (iii) of the Explanation in Section 51. This argument was also addressed before the Financial Commissioner but he has given cogent reasons for not accepting it. It has been pointed out by him that -