HAZARA SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR FEROZEPORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are one Hazara Singh and his three grandsons. They are displaced persons from West Pakistan, where they left 2000 kanals of nehri land when they migrated to India. In lieu of that land they were allotted 1010 kanals and 6 marlas of land in village Wattu, Tehsil Muktsar, District Ferozepore, in the name of petitioner No. 1, Hazara Singh. This was in the year 1949. It is stated in the writ petition that out of this land petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had been cultivating area measuring approximately 15 standard acres since kharif 1951 and they had continued to do so till the date of the petition. During 1954 settlement was arrived at between the grandfather and his three grandsons followed by a decree of the civil Court, whereby petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 has become owners. This fact, however, was not recorded by the revenue authorities and the name of petitioner No. 1 continues in the column of ownership in the jamabandi. In the case of persons who are displaced the permissible area which can be retained is 50 standard acres or 100 ordinary acres, as the case may be. The method of conversion of ordinary acres into standard acres is contained in rule 2 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953. According to this calculation the total area turned out to be 63 standard acres and 1/4 unit. The Collector has consequently declared 13 standard acres and 1/4 unit as surplus. The rights of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were not recognised either as members of the joint Hindu family or as tenants of the land. It is stated in the petition, dated the 23rd of December, 1964, that consolidation of holdings took place in this village about two years ago and in consequence of the consolidation the petitioners' area has been reduced to 98 ordinary acres, i.e. 65 barani and 33 nehri. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner but the same was dismissed. The Commissioner refused to recognise any right of petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 to this land and further expressed the view that the girdawaris showing petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 to be the tenants had been tampered with. The petitioners took up the matter in revision before the Financial Commissioner, who maintained the decision of the Commissioner. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and have filed the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised three contentions before me. Firstly he has urged that rule 2 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953, framed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, is ultra vires. This matter was agitated in a former case, Jagir Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1965 PunLJ 114 C.W. No. 2170 of 1964 decided on 18th of May, 1965 where this contention was repelled and it was held that the rule was not ultra vires the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. There is, therefore, no force in the first contention.

(3.) The second contention is that the findings of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are erroneous in so far as it was held that petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were not in cultivating possession. It is maintained that it could not have been held that the records had been tampered with. This matter cannot be raised in writ petition and the findings of fact cannot be allowed to be upset at the instance of the petitioners in this Court. I find the second contention also to be devoid of merit.