MOHINDAR SINGH Vs. BALAK RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioners are owners of land measuring 198 bighas 7 biswas comprised in Khata No. 1/4 situate in village Talo, Hadbast No. 49, Tehsil Nahan, district Sirmur. Respondent No. 1, hereinafter to be referred as 'the respondent', was the tenant of the aforesaid land. A notice under Section 45 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, as applicable to Himachal Pradesh, was issued against the respondent and in pursuance of it he was ejected from the aforesaid land. An appeal preferred by him to the Collector did not succeed and he submitted an application in revision to the Financial Commissioner, but did not press it as in the meantime the Himachal Pradesh Tenants (Rights and Restoration) Act, 1952, came into force. In accordance with Section 3 of the aforesaid Act, the respondent filed an application for restoration of the aforesaid land to him. The application was resisted by the petitioners on the grounds that they had incurred considerable expense on the improvement of the aforesaid land and in planting an orchard on a portion of it and that possession should not be restored to the respondent unless he reimbursed them for the improvement to the land and repaid the sum of Rs. 250/-. By an order dated the 24th July, 1954, the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Nahan, ordered restoration of possession of the aforesaid land on payment of a sum of Rs. 1,350/- on account of the improvement of the aforesaid land and of the sum of Rs. 250/-. The respondent preferred an appeal against the last mentioned order but the same was rejected. He thereafter filed an application in revision to the Financial Commissioner who, by his order dated the 26th October, 1960, set aside the order of the lower Courts requiring the respondent to pay to the petitioners the sums of Rs. 1,350/- and Rs. 250/-, and it is that order which is sought to be quashed by the present writ petition.

(3.) The points made out by the petitioners are that the aforesaid order was passed by the Financial Commissioner without jurisdiction and that Section 3 of the said Act of 1952 was in violation of Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India.