Fatta and ors. vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab Chandigarh and ors.

J.V. Gupta, J

This writ petition is directed against the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 28.8.1985, Annexure P. 6.

In the year 1961 area in the hands of Ranbir Kaur being a big landowner was declared as surplus. 30 standard acres were left with her as landowner''s permissible area in accordance with the selection made by her, 12 standard acres 7.1/2 units area was found to be tenant''s permissible area. The tenants who are the writ petitioners filed purchase application under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, read with Section 15 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, on 18.10.1973. These applications were allowed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade,

Ferozepore, on 23.6.1975 copy Annexure P. 2. Appeal of the landowner was dismissed by the Collector, on 21.10.1975, copy Annexure P. 3. Her revision petition against the order of the Collector, was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 25.9.1980, copy Annexure P. 4. The landowner then filed a second revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. It was urged before him on behalf of the landowner that the land in respect of which proprietary rights have been conferred forms part of the reserve area according to the list of the permissible area that forms part of the order of the Circle Revenue Officer dated 13.5.1965. That being so, the proprietary rights in this land could not have been given to the tenants. The contention on behalf of the tenants was that the area does not form part of the reserved area in accordance with the order of the Collector dated 25.11.1961 and it was thereafter not open to the landowner to change her permissible area. Moreover, the order dated 13.5.1965 was passed behind the back of the tenants and cannot affect their rights.

The learned Financial Commissioner took the view that the officers deciding these cases have conferred proprietary rights on the basis that disputed land is not a part of the reserved area of the landowner in accordance with the selection made in the year 1961. According to the learned Financial Commissioner, they have not stated that it is not a part of the reserved area in accordance with the order of the Circle Revenue Officer dated 13.5.1965. On this short ground alone, he accepted the petitioner of the landowner and the cases were remainded to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade for giving a clear finding whether the land in dispute falls within the reserved area of the landowner or not.

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there was no occasion for the Financial Commissioner to set aside the order of the authorities below and to remand the case to the Assistant Collector for fresh determination when everything was available on record. According to the learned counsel, by setting aside the orders of the authorities below the matter which was pending since 1973 has been reopened without any rhyme and reason.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the landownerrespondent No. 3 submitted that it is only a remand order and, therefore, no writ petition as such, is maintainable. In any case, argued the learned counsel, the landowner was entitled to her selected 30 standard acres after consolidation and, therefore, the case has been rightly remanded for a fresh decision.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. The said contentions were raised on behalf of the landowner before the authorities below. The Assistant Collector in his order dated 23.6.1975, Annexure P. 2, has discussed in paragraph 4 thereof that it appears that after consolidation there had been a change of numbers. The copy of Khasra Girdawari Exhibit A. B. which is for the Kharif 1963 and Rabi 1964, shows that in lieu of the old khasra numbers the applicant was cultivating land comprising khasra numbers 422/6/2(12), 14/2(416), 15(80), 16(80), 17(80) and 25/1(413), the land under the cultivation of Fatta applicant appears to have been changed from Kharif 1964 onwards. As is evident from the copies of the Khasra Girdawaris Exhibits A7, A10, A11 and A12 the land mentioned in these Khasra Girdawaris is the same as mentioned in the purchase application. Again the Collector in his order dated 21.10.1975, Annexure P. 3 discussed the matter. Even the judgment on which the learned Financial Commissioner has placed reliance i.e. , was also discussed by the Collector and on that basis it was held by him that the order dated 25.11.1961 makes it clear that the land is in tenant''s possession since 195253 and was left as tenant''s permissible area and not as permissible area of the landowner. Old Khasra numbers were reserved by the applicant landowner as owner''s reserved area. These findings were maintained by the learned Commissioner in revision.

In view of the these findings by the authorities below, there was no justification for the learned Financial Commissioner to remand the case after setting aside the orders of the authorities below. At the most a report could be sent for if it was at all necessary. It was also the more desirable since the matter was pending for a long time and the whole dispute could not be reopened after such a long litigation. As observed earlier, the material was thereon the record to sustain the findings of the authorities below and, therefore, the matter should have been decided accordingly.

Consequently, this writ petition succeeds and the impugned order of the learned Financial Commissioner dated 28.8.1985 is quashed. The Financial Commissioner will decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. The petitioners shall also be entitled to their costs.