NEWAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 28.4.66, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Planning), Punjab, in a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, who rejected the appeal of Newal petitioner against the order, dated 26.5.1965, passed by the Collector, Jind.

(2.) Newal is a landowner in village Rampura and a certain portion of his land was declared surplus. It is alleged that Partap Singh respondent cultivated the surplus land during the year 1963 for Kharif crop as it appears from the Khasra Girdawari for the relevant period. There were then consolidation proceedings and a separate Tak in lieu of the land cultivated by Partap Singh was created. The order of the Commissioner has not been placed on the record by any of the parties and the Financial Commissioner has unfortunately dealt with the matter in a very perfunctory manner. The application of Partap Singh before the Collector purported to be under Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (13 of 1955), hereinafter called the Act, which empowers the Collector to eject any person who is in wrongful or unauthorised possession of any land in the circumstances as referred to in that Section. Section 43 of the Act is in the following terms :-

(3.) It is correct that the sole question for determination before the Collector and the higher authorities, namely, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, was as to whether Partap Singh respondent had been forcibly dispossessed. The Collector, who initially dealt with the matter, recorded evidence produced by the petitioner but has not discussed that evidence in his order in the manner a judicial officer should have done. He has not given any cogent reasons as contemplated by law for discrediting that evidence led by the petitioner to show that the latter had been in actual physical possession of the land throughout and that the entry in Khasra Girdawari was not correct. It may be that this evidence was not reliable, but the Collector was expected to properly consider that evidence, examine its merits and then reject or accept the same by passing a speaking order in this respect. In order to give the finding of forcible dispossession, he has relied on the Khasra Girdawari of 1963 which, according to his own showing, indicated only this much that the possession of the land in dispute was given to Partap Singh respondent somewhere in the year 1963 and that he cultivated the same for one Kharif crop only. Another circumstance that he had taken into consideration is that the possession of the land now is with the petitioner, whom he considers to be a big landlord in the village. There have been consolidation proceedings in between but he has made no reference to them though it gleans from his order that a separate Kurrah was drawn in respect of the land cultivated by Partap Singh petitioner for Kharif 1963. It may be that the land was taken over by the petitioner during consolidation proceedings or that the entry in one Khasra Girdawari showing possession of Partap Singh respondent was not correct. There is no presumption of truth attaching to entries in Khasra Girdawaris. I am not going into the merits of this controversy, but one thing is positively certain that in view of these two circumstances only, namely, that Partap Singh respondent was shown in possession in the Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 1963 only and afterwards the petitioner is in possession of the same land in the year 1965, he had no justification to jump to the conclusion that the possession must have been taken by the petitioner forcibly. The finding regarding the forcible dispossession in my opinion, is not based on any legal evidence but rather on mere suspicion and this by itself vitiates the order of the Collector. The Financial Commissioner, to whom the revision was preferred, has also not done anything better and does not seem to have applied a judicial mind. A clear finding should have been given as to when Partap Singh respondent left possession or in other words how and when the petitioner acquired forcible possession from the said Partap Singh. There is no such thing as a presumption of forcible dispossession of Partap Singh respondent. An interference by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction by the issue of a writ of certiorari is called for on the short ground that the findings, as they appear in the orders of the Financial Commissioner and the Collector, (annexures 'A' and 'B' with the writ petition) do not seem to be based on any legal evidence and are arbitrary.