PHUL CHAND Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The facts as alleged in the petition are as follows :-

(2.) The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Narnaul, (Respondent 2) on the 10th August, 1962, passed an order and a compromise decree. The petitioner alleges that owing to oversight of some official of the Court or accidental omission, the condition regarding the ejectment of Respondent No. 3, from the land in dispute in the event of non-compliance with the terms of the compromise, was not incorporated in the decree. Subsequently, when Respondent No. 3 failed to make payment in terms of the compromise, dated the 10th August, 1962, the petitioner ejected him from the land in dispute in execution proceedings, and took its possession on the basis of the order, dated the 1st July, 1963, passed by the Assistant Collector, Respondent No. 2. Since then the petitioner is in cultivating possession of the land.

(3.) Against that order, dated 1st July, 1963, of Respondent No. 2, the tenant (Respondent 3) preferred an appeal to the Collector, Narnaul, who, by an order, dated 2nd September, 1963, dismissed the appeal. Against the order dated the 2nd September, 1963, of the Collector, the tenant (Respondent 3) went in revision to the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, who also dismissed the same by an order, dated 2nd April, 1964. The tenant (Respondent 3) went in further revision to the Financial Commissioner, Planning, (Respondent 1), who, by an order, dated 27th April, 1965, accepted the revision petition. That order of Respondent 1 is being challenged as illegal and without jurisdiction on these grounds :-