GURDIAL SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to challenge the validity of the order of the Financial Commissioner dated June 19, 1975 (Annexure P-3) confirming the orders under section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) Kartar Singh father of petitioner No. 1 and grandfather of petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 was a big landowner and an area measuring 27.33 standard acres belonging to him was declared surplus. Out of the surplus area, the land measuring 42 kanals and 8 marlas in village Achal was allotted to Batan Singh respondent No. 4 under the Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme and in pursuance of the allotment order, symbolical possession was delivered to him on February 11, 1965, as the land was under crops at that time. Even after harvesting of the crops, the petitioners continued in possession of the land in dispute which led to the filing of an application under section 43 of the Act by respondent No. 4 for their ejectment. This application was allowed by the Collector and physical possession of the land in dispute was ordered to be delivered to Batan Singh vide orders dated October 31, 1973. The petitioners having failed in appeal and revision have come to this Court by way of this petition.

(3.) Mr. Puran Chand, the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the State of Punjab and others v. Bhai Ardaman Singh and others etc., 1969 AIR(SC) 13. urged that the application of respondent No. 4 was not covered by any of the clauses of section 43 of the Act and, therefore, the authorities had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders. A perusal of this judgment would, however, show that it has no bearing on the facts of the present case. In the case before the Supreme Court, the landlords dispossessed their tenants in the year 1943. After the enforcement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act in the year 1953, the tenants filed an application under section 43 of the Act for restoration of the possession. This Court turned down the plea of the tenants on the ground that the Act had no retrospective operation and, therefore, no remedy was available its provisions for the wrong done prior to its enforcement. This view of the High Court was upheld by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in addition it was held that the provisions of section 43 were not attracted as the counsel failed to point out any provisions of the Act under which the landlords were debarred from use of the land in dispute. As the dispossession had taken place in that case in the year 1943, prior to the enforcement of the Act, obviously the provisions of section 43 could not be invoked to seek the restoration of the possession nor could it be said that under any of the provisions of the Act the landlords were barred from the use of the land because of the finding that the Act had no retrospective operation.