KESRA RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the tenants of respondents 2 to 6 in village Risalia Khera, Tehsil Sirsa, District Hissar. They made applications for the purchase of the lands under their tenancies which were rejected by the Assistant Collector. The appeals filed before the Collector met the same fate and it is asserted by the petitioners that their revisions are pending before the Commissioner which fact is denied by the respondents.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 applied to the Assistant Collector, Sirsa, for the ejectment of the petitioners on the ground that the land under their tenancies had been reserved by them as their permissible area. Their applications were accepted by the Assistant Collector and the petitioners' appeals before the Collector and revisions before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner were dismissed. The Financial Commissioner in his order dated 26th of October, 1966, came to the conclusion that the lands in the occupation of the petitioners formed part of the lawfully reserved areas of respondents 2 to 4 after consideration of the entire evidence on the record and it has not been shown how the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Financial Commissioner are vitiated and can be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. All that has been argued is that respondents 2 to 6, who are real brothers, made a joint reservation on one reservation form and reliance is placed on the judgment of Shamsher Bahadur J. in Karam Singh v. The Financial Commissioner and another, 1966 PunLJ 202, in which it was held that according to the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, joint reservation is not permissible. In that case all the four landowners were examined in surplus area proceedings and none of them stated that he had made any reservation or selection. The authorities, however, reached the conclusion that the reservation had been made on the basis of a report made by Kartar Singh, one of the landowners, that he had reserved 120 standard acres on 14th of October, 1953. On these facts, it was held that the reservation was by one landowner on behalf of four landowners and that such a joint reservation was not permissible according to the rules. In the instant case, all the five landowners made one application in which they stated that each one of them was entitled to 59 acres 7 kanals 7 marlas and their Khatas were joint of which numbers were given measuring 299 acres 4 kanals 15 marlas, so that the reservation had not been made by one landowner on behalf of the five, but all the five landowners asked for separate reservation of their shares although they stated that their Khatas should remain joint. I, therefore, find no force in this argument. Shamsher Bahadur, J. also held that where the finding is one of fact and is based on appraisal of facts, it would be singularly inappropriate for the High Court to examine the evidence over again in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and in the circumstances of that case, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that there was no scope for interference in the petitions. With respect I have also come to the same conclusion on the facts of the present case.

(3.) The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners filed a chart before the learned Financial Commissioner showing the areas which were in the occupation of the petitioners and which showed that the areas did not tally with the reserved areas of respondents 2 to 6. Shri P.S. Jain, the learned Advocate for respondents 2 to 6 also appeared on their behalf before the learned Financial Commissioner and he states at the Bar that the chart filed by the petitioners was explained to the Financial Commissioner by both the parties and it was on consideration of that chart and the evidence on the record that the learned Financial Commissioner came to the conclusion that the land formed part of the reserved areas of respondents 2 to 7. This finding of fact arrived at by the learned Financial Commissioner is binding on me and no error of law apparent on the face of the order has been brought to my notice,