PAT RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pat Ram petitioner was held to be big landowner. Proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were taken against him. Collector, Hissar, vide order dated 24th March, 1961, copy of which is Annexure 'A' with the petition, declared 83.80 Ordinary Acres as surplus area of the petitioner. It may be pointed out that though the surplus area was specified in Annexure 'A' attached with the writ petition, but the permissible area of the petitioner was not demarcated in the order. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, which appeal was accepted by the learned Commissioner vide order dated 11.9.1961, copy of which is Annexure 'C' with the petition, and the case was remanded to the Collector for fresh decision. It may incidentally be pointed out that in the grounds of appeal, copy of which is Annexure 'B' with the petition, the petitioner made a grievance that he was not served with a proper notice and since he was not given an opportunity to defend the case, therefore, he was greatly prejudiced and no choice of selection was given to him. However, this ground of the petitioner was not dealt with in the order of the Commissioner specifically as it appears that the learned Commissioner accepted another ground in the appeal and remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision. The learned Special Collector in pursuance of the remand order, passed a fresh order on 14th January, 1963, copy of which is Annexure 'D' with the petition. This order is unfortunately criptive and unhappily worded. The learned Collector found as a fact that no mortgaged area had been included in the total area of the petitioner but instead of passing a fresh order for declaring the surplus area and specifying the permissible area of the landowner he directed that the utilization of the surplus area in accordance with form 'F' framed under the earlier order which was set aside, be implemented. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against this order, filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner which appeal was dismissed by him vide order dated 26th February, 1964, copy of which is Annexure 'F' with the petition. Revision petition filed before the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed vide order dated 28th November, 1965, copy of which is Annexure 'H' with the writ petition. It was contended before the learned Commissioner and also before the learned Financial Commissioner that the permissible area left with the petitioner was inferior in quality and that the petitioner was not given any chance of selection but this contention did not find favour with either the learned Commissioner or the learned Financial Commissioner on the ground that no such contention was raised before the learned Commissioner in appeal on the basis of which the remand order was passed by the learned Commissioner earlier. The orders of the learned Collector, copy of which is Annexure 'D', of the learned Commissioner, Annexure 'F' and that of the learned Financial Commissioner, Annexure 'H', are sought to be impugned in this writ petition.

(2.) It had been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the permissible area of the petitioner was not demarcated by the Collector and that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of selecting his permissible area.

(3.) After going through the impugned orders, I find that the learned Commissioner and the learned Financial Commissioner were not right in holding that the question of allotment of inferior permissible area could not be allowed to be raised in appeal and revision as the same had not earlier been raised before the learned Commissioner in appeal on the basis of which the case was admittedly remanded by the Commissioner to the Collector. There is nothing in the order of the learned Commissioner dated 11th September, 1961, by which the case was remanded to the Collector, to suggest that the ground of allotment of inferior quality of land and not affording of any opportunity for the selection of the permissible area, was not pressed before the learned Commissioner. I find that in the grounds of appeal, copy of which is Annexure 'B', specific plea had been raised that the petitioner had been greatly prejudiced and he had not been given any choice to select his permissible area and the earlier proceedings were held at his back. The learned Commissioner accepted one of the contentions raised in the appeal and remanded the case. It was in these circumstances that the ground of non-affording of any opportunity to select the permissible area need not have been specifically mentioned in the order of the Commissioner. It is a matter of common knowledge that if an order is attacked on more then one grounds and if one of the grounds prevail with the appellate Court, the other grounds are left untouched. Since the case was remanded by the learned Commissioner, therefore, it was hardly necessary for him to have mentioned all the grounds of attack against the order of the Collector, in his order. In any case, there is nothing in the order of the learned Commissioner dated 11th September, 1961, to conclude that the only ground pressed before the learned Commissioner was the ground on which the case was remanded. In this view of the matter, the learned Commissioner and the learned Financial Commissioner were not right in not determining the plea of the petitioner on merits as they brushed aside the plea by holding that it was an afterthought and it could not be allowed to be raised. The order of the learned Commissioner and that of the learned Financial Commissioner, therefore, stand vitiated.