BALBIR KAUR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER TAXATION PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution arises out of the following circumstances. Smt. Ratno was the original landowner of the land measuring 67 Standard Acres and 4-1/4 Units on April 15, 1953. The Collector, Patti, by an order, dated April 4, 1960, declared 37 Standard Acres and 4-1/4 Units of Smt. Ratno's land as surplus area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, Punjab Act 10 of 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On October 24, 1957, Smt. Ratno had executed a will bequeathing her entire landed estate to Smt. Balbir Kaur, the writ petitioner, and three others in different shares. Thereafter, in March, 1962, Smt. Ratno died. Dharam Singh and others claiming themselves to be purchasers of a certain portion of the land from Smt. Ratno deceased, preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Collector, dated April 4, 1960, to the Commissioner, Jullundur, who, by an order, dated November 7, 1962, allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision. After the remand, the Collector declared, by an order, dated October, 14, 1964, 10 Standard Acres and 5-3/4 Units of the land as surplus area out of the 40 Standard Acres and 5-3/4 Units, which on the death of Smt. Ratno, had, on the basis of the aforesaid will, been mutated in the writ petitioner's favour. Against that order, dated October 14, 1964, of the Collector, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, who by an order, dated May 17, 1965, accepted the same and remanded the case to the Collector for a de novo assessment of the surplus area. After the second remand, the Collector, by an order, dated April 6, 1966, (copy Annexure 'A' to the writ petition), declared 4 Standard Acres and 11-1/4 Units of the land as surplus area. Against this order, dated April 6, 1966, Karnail Singh respondent No. 3, who had been settled on this land earlier by the Collector, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Jullundur, who, on March 21, 1967, held that the appeal was time-barred by 42 days, but at the same time converted the appeal into a revision petition on the ground that, for the purposes of assessing the surplus area, the testamentary disposition made by Smt. Ratno in favour of Smt. Balbir Kaur writ petitioner and others had to be ignored altogether as it was hit by the provisions of Section 10-A(b) of the Act, and the Collector in not giving effect to the aforesaid provision had committed an error of law. He, therefore, referred the case to the Financial Commissioner with the recommendation that the entire proceedings conducted in this case by the Collector be quashed and the case remanded to the Collector with the direction that he should hold de novo enquiry and decide the case afresh according to law. The Financial Commissioner, by his order, dated October 24, 1967 (copy Annexure 'C' to the writ petition), accepted the reference, and, in the exercise of his revisional powers, set aside the decision of the Collector and remanded the case to the Collector for a de novo assessment of the surplus area after hearing all the persons interested. Smt. Balbir Kaur in this writ petition has impugned the order, dated March 21, 1967, of the Commissioner (copy Annexure 'B' to the writ petition), and the order, dated October 24, 1967, of the Financial Commissioner (copy Annexure 'C' to the writ petition), on these grounds -

(2.) The question involved in ground (a) was referred to a Full Bench, because conflicting views had been expressed in some cases decided by this Court on this point. The Full Bench in The Kanianwali Co-operative Farming Society at Kanianwali V. The State of Punjab, 1969 PunLJ 258, has held -

(3.) The main point urged in grounds (a) and (b), above (numbered as grounds (b), (c) and (d) in paragraph 11 of this writ petition), is concluded by the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench. The only question that survives for decision is, whether the Commissioner was competent to treat the time-barred appeal of Karnail Singh, Respondent 3, as a revision petition.