SUKHDEV KAUR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , Sukhdev Kaur alongwith her two sons, Sohan Singh and Harpal Singh, has filed this writ petition to challenge the order dated 6.12.1984 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, vide which he accepted the application filed by the State against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 is wife of respondent No. 4, Balbir Singh whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are their sons. Due to strained relations between husband and wife, petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Section 488 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from her husband, respondent No. 4. It was alleged that respondent No. 4 was maltreating petitioner No. 1 and had later turned her out from house with two minor children i.e. petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The application seeking maintenance filed by petitioner No. 1 was ultimately allowed on 7.4.1958 by Magistrate Ist Class, Mukatsar. Total maintenance of Rs. 120/- per month (Rs. 60/- for petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 60/- for petitioner Nos. 2 and 3) was allowed. Husband-respondent No. 4 filed a revision against this order before Sessions Judge, which was dismissed on 11.7.1958. In compliance with the order of maintenance, respondent No. 4 transferred a piece of land measuring 89 kanals 12 marlas by way of gift in favour of the petitioners. The date of this gift deed is not disclosed in the petition.

(3.) IT appears that Collector, Agrarian, subsequently sought permission for revision/review of the order dated 4.12.1974 on the ground that the said order, exempting land gifted to the petitioners from utilisation was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the State. The Commissioner, however, rejected this prayer of the respondent-State through his order dated 10.12.1975. State filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. The same, however, was dismissed on 16.6.1982 (Annexure P-7). State still did not feel satisfied and filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner, however, after examining the record accepted the revision and quashed the order passed by the Collector dated 4.12.1974 and that of the Commissioner dated 15.6.1982. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition to impugn the order passed by the Financial Commissioner.