FATTA Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 28.8.1985, Annexure P. 6.

(2.) In the year 1961 area in the hands of Ranbir Kaur being a big landowner was declared as surplus. 30 standard acres were left with her as landowner's permissible area in accordance with the selection made by her, 12 standard acres 7.1/2 units area was found to be tenant's permissible area. The tenants who are the writ petitioners filed purchase application under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, read with Section 15 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, on 18.10.1973. These applications were allowed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ferozepore, on 23.6.1975 copy Annexure P. 2. Appeal of the landowner was dismissed by the Collector, on 21.10.1975, copy Annexure P. 3. Her revision petition against the order of the Collector, was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 25.9.1980, copy Annexure P. 4. The landowner then filed a second revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. It was urged before him on behalf of the landowner that the land in respect of which proprietary rights have been conferred forms part of the reserve area according to the list of the permissible area that forms part of the order of the Circle Revenue Officer dated 13.5.1965. That being so, the proprietary rights in this land could not have been given to the tenants. The contention on behalf of the tenants was that the area does not form part of the reserved area in accordance with the order of the Collector dated 25.11.1961 and it was thereafter not open to the landowner to change her permissible area. Moreover, the order dated 13.5.1965 was passed behind the back of the tenants and cannot affect their rights.

(3.) The learned Financial Commissioner took the view that the officers deciding these cases have conferred proprietary rights on the basis that disputed land is not a part of the reserved area of the landowner in accordance with the selection made in the year 1961. According to the learned Financial Commissioner, they have not stated that it is not a part of the reserved area in accordance with the order of the Circle Revenue Officer dated 13.5.1965. On this short ground alone, he accepted the petitioner of the landowner and the cases were remainded to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade for giving a clear finding whether the land in dispute falls within the reserved area of the landowner or not.