DHINGROO MALL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by one Dhingroo Mall under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of writs of certiorari and prohibition restraining the respondents, the Financial Com missioner, Himachal Pradesh and the State of Himachal Pradesh, from dispossessing the peti tioner from land measuring 24 bighas and 7 biswas comprising Khewat Khataunj No. 1/1, Khasra Nos. 643, 645 and 649, and house pro perty appurtenant thereto, situate in Chak Nar, Tehsil Chopal, District Mahasu.

(2.) THE petitioner applied on 14 4 1948 to the Raja of Jubbal for the grant of the said land to him on the ground of subsistence. The application was sent down through the Chief Executive Officer to the Collector for disposal. The Collector asked for a report from the Tehsildar of Chopal. The Tehsildar reported that the land was part of the private Bassa of the Raja, and that the Raja had previously not agreed to its being given for cultivation. The Tehsildar suggested that until final decision of the Raja's claims to private property the land in question be not given to anybody for cultivation. The Collector of Jubbal, disagreeing with the report of the Tehsildar, granted the land to the petitioner by an order dated 18 6 1948. As the period of lease was not specified in the order, he amended it by an order dated 21 6 1948 by fixing the term of lease as ten years. The Raja appealed against the Collector's order to the Commissioner of Mahasu, but the appeals was dismissed for default on 16 9 1948. A subsequent application of the Raja to set aside the dismissal order was dismissed on 29 3 1950. Thereupon the Raja went up in revision to the Financial Commissioner against the Collector's order dated 21 6 1948. The Financial Commissioner held that the Collector had no authority to grant a lease in respect of the private property of the Raja and that his order was therefore ultra vires. The Financial Commissioner even remarked that the order appeared to be mala fide in view of its having been passed in spite of the Tehsildar's report to the con trary. Two objections raised before the Financial Commissioner on behalf of the present petitioner, one relating to limitation and the other to his power to revise the order in question, were rejected. In the result, the revision, was allowed by the Financial Commissioner on 21 2 1951, the orders of the Collector dated 18th and 21st June 1948 were set aside and the land in dispute was ordered to be restored to the Raja. The present petition has been, filed to prevent enforcement of this order of the Financial Commissioner. It may be stated here in passing that the present petitioner filed, an application to the Financial Commissioner for review of the order, but the application was rejected on 22 6 1951.

(3.) AS adverted to above, the question regarding jurisdiction was raised before the Financial Commissioner. It was held by him that he was empowered to revise the Collector's order under Section 16, Punjab Land Revenue Act. If this yiew be correct, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief from this Court because this Court would not sit as a Court of Appeal in order to correct the errors of law or procedure of the Financial Commissioner in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This extraordinary jurisdiction could properly be invoked only if the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the order in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner realised it and was therefore constrained to argue that the Collector had no jurisdiction to grant the lease, and that therefore the orders passed by him on the 18th and 21st of June 1948 were illegal. The learned counsel then went on to argue that the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the Collector's orders under Section 16, Punjab Land Revenue Act.