SATISH KUMAR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER APPEALS-II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Cheema, the learned Senior Counsel has raised two points in the course of arguments; firstly that the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, who had passed the impugned order Annexure P-8, had no jurisdiction to do so as this officer was not exercising the powers of the State Government in terms of the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 and secondly that the Commissioner had gone wrong on fats and had given a finding that as the petitioners had not been in possession of the property in dispute for a period of two years upto Rabi, 1979, they were not entitled to the transfer.

(2.) We have perused the written statement filed by the respondent-State. In paragraph 8 of the reply, it has been pointed out that the Financial Commissioner. Appeals-II was also exercising the powers of the State Government in her capacity as Secretary of the Department and this power had been conferred on her by notification. This assertion has not been denied by filing a replication. To our mind merely because the nomenclature at the heading of the order read, "Financial Commissioner, Appeal-II", does not detract from the fact that as per the written statement she was also exercising the powers of the Secretary, Rehabilitation Department and as such of the State Government.

(3.) The second argument raised by Shri Cheema is equally without merit. It is clear from the impugned order as also the written statement that the petitioners had been shown as Gair Marusi Doam only from the year 1983 onwards and that they were not in possession of the land prior to that date. Moreover, under Rule 3 of the Rules, the allotment could be made to the head of a family and to an applicant who was a tiller of the soil. It appears from the writ petition as also the reply that the petitioners are commission agents/Ahartias and, therefore, Dalip Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had appeared before the Sales Commissioner, Ropar and deposed that he had cultivated the land in question from the year 1955 onwards upto the year 1981 and this was reflected in the Jamabandis for these years. The question of the petitioners being in possession of the disputed property prior to 1981 even on the showing of their witnesses, therefore, does not arise. There is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.