HARNAM SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two writ petitions (1097 and 1098 of 1967) brought by Harnam Singh assailing the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 7th February, 1967 and the subordinate revenue authorities allowing the partition proceedings initiated by the petitioner's mother and brothers (respondents 6 to 9) for partition of the property left by the petitioner's father Ranjit Singh in villages Tappa Khera and Abul Kharana.

(2.) The petitioner's father Ranjit Singh was a big landowner holding 51 Standard Acres 13-3/4 units of land in villages Tappa Khera and Abul Kharana, in the district of Ferozepur. Out of this area 19 Standard Acres 1/4 units of land were in possession of the petitioner in both the villages as a tenant under his father. Accordingly, in the proceedings for assessment of surplus area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, he was given the benefit of this area as well and only 2 Standard Acres 14 units of the land held by Ranjit Singh was declared as surplus area.

(3.) On the death of Ranjit Singh in the year 1962, the mutation of his inheritance was entered in the names of the petitioner and respondents 5 to 9. That mutation was duly sanctioned on the 2nd July, 1963 in favour of the petitioner and his brothers and their mother Shrimati Nand Kaur. The respondents 5 to 9 thereupon presented separate applications for partition of the land situate in villages Tappa Khera and Abul Kharana. Appearing in those proceedings, Harnam Singh pleaded that he was a permanent tenant in land measuring 19 Standard Acres 1-1/4 Units in village Tappa Khera and 1 Standard Acre 14 Units in village Abul Kharana since the life-time of his father and prayed that this land be excluded from partition. The Assistant Collector found that the plea put forward by Harnam Singh did not raise any question of title and, accordingly, allowed the partition proceedings to proceed, vide his order dated 7th May, 1966. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal to the Collector, but without success and his petitions for revision were also dismissed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, vide their orders dated 24th August, 1966 and 7th February, 1967. In the course of revisional proceedings before the Commissioner, Harnam Singh appears to have attempted to improve upon his case by further pleading that under a private partition effected by his father he had obtained the land of which he was in actual possession. Further improvement in the case was made by him before the Financial Commissioner by urging that under section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, he had a right to purchase the land under his tenancy as he had been in continuous possession of the same for more than six years. The plea of private partition which the petitioner advanced before the Commissioner was, however, given up in the course of arguments before the Financial Commissioner, who, agreeing with the subordinate revenue authorities held that no question of title arose for consideration in the partition proceedings and incidentally observed that the petitioner's claim that he had the right to purchase the land under section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 was untenable in view of the decision of Narula, J. in Civil Writ No. 829 of 1963 Rajinder Kumar v. State,1967 LLT 99 decided on 15th of December, 1966.