SAHI RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two connected writ petition Nos. 1089 and 1090 of 1967. It was conceded by the learned counsel that the decision in the former writ petition will govern the later case as well. I would, therefore, refer to the facts of only Civil Writ No. 1089 of 1967.

(2.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by Sahi Ram and his four sons. According to the petitioners, they were displaced persons from West Pakistan, where Sahi Ram, petitioner No. 1, owned considerable area of land. After the partition of the country, petitioner No. 1 was allotted more than 50 Standard Acres of land in village Kheman Khera in district Ferozepur in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan. On 18th of June, 1965 the Special Collector, acting under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act), declared surplus area of the petitioners, leaving only 50 Standard Acres with petitioner No. 1 in village Kheman Khera as his permissible area. Against this order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, but the same was dismissed by him on 16th of May, 1966. The petitioners then went in revision before the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab, respondent No. 1, who, on 24-11-1966, accepted the revision petition and remanded the case back to the Collector Ferozepur for a fresh decision in accordance with law on the ground that the Special Collector, Punjab, who had passed the order dated 18-6-1965, had no jurisdiction to determine the surplus area of petitioner No. 1. On 30th of November, 1966, respondent No. 1, suo motu, reviewed his previous order dated 24-11-1966 and revoked the same on the ground that he had erroneously remarked in the said order that the Special Collector, who had decided the case of the petitioner, had not been invested with the powers of a Collector under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called the Rules). A few days after he announced that order, he was informed by the Clerk of his Court that the Special Collector had in fact been invested with the powers of a Collector by Revenue Department notification No. 3802-ARII(III)-63/1083, dated the 30th April, 1963. On 20-5-1967, respondent No. 1, then dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners. That led to the filing of the present writ petition on 7-6-1967.

(3.) The only point urged by the counsel for the petitioners before me was that the learned Financial Commissioner had erred in law in reviewing his order dated 24-11-1966. Sahi Ram petitioner's total holding was situate in one district, namely Ferozepur, and, therefore, in his case it was the Collector of that district alone who could determine the surplus area. The Special Collector had no jurisdiction to do so in his case. The Revenue Department notification dated 30th of April, 1963 was manifestly illegal, because the provisions of rule 2(iii-A) of the Rules contemplate the appointment of a Collector of the District and not for the whole of the State as was done by the said notification.