NORATI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dalip was a tenant under Jagan Nath. He applied for purchase of land which was comprised in his tenancy under Jagan Nath, under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). During the proceedings Jagan Nath died. Dalip contended that Jagan Nath was a big landowner. Dalip was an old tenant. His tenancy was not included in the permissible area of Jagan Nath. The application of Dalip under Section 18 of the Act was allowed on February 18, 1972, and he was allowed to purchase 28 kanals and 6 marlas of land. Dalip died after his application was allowed. The legal heirs of Jagan Nath filed an appeal against the order of the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade. The legal heirs of Dalip were impleaded as parties. The appeal was dismissed by the Collector. A revision petition filed by the landowner also met with the same fate. The subsequent revision petition filed by them before the Financial Commissioner was allowed vide his orders dated September 11, 1975. The learned Financial Commissioner held that Jagan Nath, the original landowner, had neither reserved his permissible area nor he had selected his permissible area. Even the authorities did not select the permissible area for him. As such, the purchase application could not be allowed without first determining the permissible area of the landowner. The learned Financial Commissioner also found that as Jagan Nath, the original landowner, had died during the pendency of the application; the land had been inherited by his heirs, and the Assistant Collector had to decide the application taking the heirs to be the landowner and that, too, after the selection of the permissible area of the land by the prescribed authority. Consequently, he set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and Collector as well as of the Commissioner and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade for decision in the light of the observations made in the order. Dissatisfied with this order, Mrs. Norati widow of Dalip and his other legal heirs have filed the present petition.

(2.) Mr. Sarjit Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vigorously argued that the decision of the Financial Commissioner that after the death of the landowner, the Assistant Collector has to see if the heirs of the deceased landowner were themselves big landowners, is clearly against law. He has brought to my notice a Supreme Court decision in Rameshwar and others v. Jot Ram and another, 1975 PunLJ 454wherein it has been held -

(3.) The learned counsel also assailed the decision of the Financial Commissioner on another point also. The Financial Commissioner to reach his conclusion has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jee Ram and others v. Gobind and others,1971 PunLJ 766. It has been held therein -