SAJJAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by Sajjan Singh, his son Kartar Singh and his grandsons Makhan Singh and Sukhdev Singh, residents of village Aklia Kalan, District Bhatinda, challenging the legality of the order dated 21st September, 1960 passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, respondent No. 2, against which the revision petition was dismissed in limine by the learned Financial Commissioner, Chandigarh, respondent No. 1 on 30th May, 1964. By the impugned order, the learned Commissioner had confirmed the decision of the Revenue Assistant. Bhatinda, respondent No. 3, exercising the powers of Collector (Agrarian), dated 6th May, 1960, whereby 9.12 standard acres of land belonging to Sajjan Singh, petitioner, was declared surplus.

(2.) In the writ petition which was filed in June, 1964, the main contention raised was that after the surplus area was declared by the Collector (Agrarian), consolidation proceedings took place in the village of the petitioners, who were, consequently, given new holdings in place of their old ones. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application before the said Collector praying that fresh proceedings under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, hereinafter called the Act be taken and they be given the right to reserve 30 standard acres of land permissible under the Act. The surplus declared on the basis of the pre-consolidation holdings could not be acted upon. According to the petitioners, the Collector did not pass any order on that application. From the order of the learned Commissioner, it does not appear that this point was taken before him. But in the writ petition, it was averred by the petitioners that they urged this ground before the learned Financial Commissioner but in spite of that he dismissed the revision petition in limine.

(3.) In the return filed by the State, it has been admitted that the petitioners did make an application that fresh proceedings for declaring surplus area under the Act be started and they be allowed to reserve their permissible area, but this request could not be acceded to as there was no such provision in the Act. According to the respondents, the surplus area of the petitioners was to be separated out of the area obtained by them after consolidation under Section 32-MM of the Act. The petitioners were, however, not eligible to make fresh reservation after consolidation operations. The decrease in the holding on account of consolidation would proportionately effect the permissible area and the area declared surplus.