LAWS(P&H)-1978-9-39

GANPAT SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

Decided On September 06, 1978
GANPAT SINGH Appellant
V/S
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ganpat Singh has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the orders passed by the revenue authorities, which are annexed with the petition as Annexures 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F'.

(2.) It is alleged in the writ petition that tenants Lachhman and Smt. Briji, respondent Nos. 5 and 6, filed an application under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purchase of land measuring 89 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 682 min situate in village Kairu II. The Assistant Collector, Bhiwani, respondent No. 4, dismissed that application holding that the petitioner was a small landowner, vide his order dated 16th July, 1963, copy of which is attached with the petition as Annexure 'A'. Dissatisfied by the order of the Assistant Collector, the tenants filed appeal before the Collector, who accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for a fresh decision as to whether the petitioner-landlord was a small landowner or a big landowner. The order of the Collector is dated 2nd January, 1964, copy of which is attached with the petition as Annexure 'B'. The landowner redecided the matter and allowed the purchase application holding that the petitioner is a big landowner. The order of the Assistant Collector is dated 23rd June, 1964, copy of which is attached with the petition as Annexure 'C'. Against this order the landlord-petitioner filed appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed vide his order dated 20th January, 1965, copy of which is attached with the petition as Annexure 'D'. The landlord-petitioner also filed revision petitions before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, which met the same fate. The order of the Commissioner is dated 28th January, 1966 and that of the Financial Commissioner is dated 19th November, 1966. Copies of these orders are attached with the petition as annexure 'E' and 'F' respectively. It is against these orders that the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Balwant Singh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the ingredients of Section 18 of the Act are not satisfied and hence the impugned orders are not legal and are liable to be set aside. No return has been filed either by tenant-respondent Nos. 5 and 6 or by the State. Mr. Ram Rang, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6, however, argued that the ingredients of Section 18 of the Act are fully satisfied. I have perused the impugned orders and I find that all the ingredients of Section 18 are not satisfied. Section 18 of the Act reads as under :-