SATPAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners pray for quashing the orders Annexure P1 to P4 invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Ramu, respondent No. 5, claiming himself to be a tenant on the land of the petitioner, measuring 145 Kanals 10 Marlas in village Bhagar, Tehsil Sirsa for a period exceeding 6 years, made an application to respondent No. 4 for purchase of the same under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (for short the Act). The application was allowed by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 29.8.1972 Annexure P1 for purchase of 138 Kanals 15 Marlas of land as the remaining land was held to be included in the reserved area of the landowners. He proceeded to assess the value of the same under sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act at Rs. 15,209/45 paise. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Collector, respondent No. 3, who modified the order of respondent No. 4, to the extent that instead of treating 46 Kanals, 15 Marlas out of the land as Nehri, he treated 72 Kanals of the land as such, and the remaining land as Barani and assessed the value accordingly vide his order dated 9.1.1973 Annexure P2. The petitioners were still aggrieved by the order of the Collector aforesaid and they preferred a revision petition before the Commissioner, Hissar Division, Hissar, respondent No. 2. Their case was that the entire land which is the subject matter of purchase was Nehri and value of the land as Nehri could not, therefore, be confined to 72 Kanals of land only, but their petition failed and the same was dismissed by respondent No.2, vide order dated 27.8.1973, Annexure P3. They then preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, but the same has also been dismissed. Notices of this petition were duly served on the respondents, but no one has appeared on their behalf. As such, the writ petition is being decided exparte.

(3.) Shri Ram Rang, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that it has not been disputed before the authorities below that the entire area of the land, measuring 138 Kanals, 15 Marlas which respondent No. 5 has been allowed to purchase, falls within the command area of canal irrigation. In fact, different portions of the land were being irrigated by canal water for different crops from time to time. A copy of he Warabandi prepared by the Canal Authorities was produced by respondent No. 4. He states that the only source of irrigation for the land is canal water. The mere fact that in the Khasra Girdwari for the year 1971 only 72 Kanals of land was shown as Nehri, could not be the criteria for determining the nature of the land.