KHAN CHAND Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Financial Commissioner, dated 3rd November, 1967.

(2.) Land measuring 77.88 Ordinary Acres belonging to the petitioner was declared surplus by the Collector, Surplus Area, Hissar, vide his order dated 21st February, 1963 (Annexure 'A' with the writ petition), leaving 100 Ordinary Acres with him as his permissible area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as applicable to the displaced persons. No appeal etc. was filed against this order to the Authorities concerned. In the year 1967, the petitioner moved a review application before the Collector, Surplus Area, Hissar, praying therein that in view of the authority of the Punjab High Court, reported as Khan Chand v. State of Punjab and others, 1966 PunLJ 138 he may be allowed to retain 50 Standard Acres of area as his permissible area irrespective of Ordinary Acres. The learned Collector dismissed the said review application with the observations that the previous orders could not be reviewed simply because a new ruling has been given after the decision of the earlier order passed in 1963. It was further observed that the order dated 21st February, 1963, was passed in view of the interpretation then taken regarding the declaration of surplus area. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against this order of the Collector, filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, who dismissed the same vide his order dated 8th August, 1967 (Annexure 'C' with the writ petition). The matter was again taken in a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, who also dismissed the same vide his order dated 3rd November, 1967 (Annexure 'E' with the writ petition), observing that the Collector and the Commissioner were right in rejecting the request of the petitioner because if old decisions were to be reviewed merely because of different interpretation of the law at a subsequent date, then there will be no end to the litigation.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner again relied upon the same judgment reported in Khan Chand's case corresponding to Khan Chand v. State of Punjab and others, 1966 68 PunLR 543. The matter in this writ petition stands concluded by the judgments of this Court reported as Chinku Ram v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 1971 PunLJ 291 and Nand Ram v. The Financial Commissioner Planning, Punjab and another, 1971 PunLJ 376. It is quite clear that the order of the Collector dated 21st February, 1963, was in consonance with the law then prevailing and the mere fact that subsequently a different construction was put on the statutory provisions, is no ground for reviewing the Collector's order which had become final. It cannot be said by any stretch of reasoning, that the order of the Collector was without jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the learned Financial Commissioner rightly dismissed the revision petition vide impugned order, Annexure 'E'.