Sahi Ram and others vs The Financial Commissioner and others

P.C. Pandit, J.—This order will dispose of two connected writ petitions Nos. 1089 and 1090 of 1967. It was conceded by the Learned Counsel that the decision in the former writ petition will govern the latter case as well. I would, therefore, refer to the facts of only Civil writ No. 1089 of 1967.

This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by Sahi Ram and his four sons, According to the petitioners, they were displaced persons from West Pakistan, where Sahi Ram, petitioner No. 1, owned considerable area of land. After the partition of the country, petitioner No. 1 was allotted more than 50 Standard Acres of laud in village Kheman Khera in district Ferozepur in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan. On 18th of June, 1965 the Special Collector, acting under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 (hereinafter called the Act), declared surplus area of the petitioners, leaving only 50 Standard Acres with petitioner No. 1 in village Kheman Khera as his permissible area. Against this order the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, but the same was dismissed by him on 16th of May, 1966. The petitioners then went in revision before the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab, respondent No. 1, who, on 24th November, 1966, accepted the revision petition and remanded the case back to the Collector Ferozepur for a fresh decision in accordance with law on the ground that the Special Collector, Punjab, who had passed the order dated 18th June, 1965, had no jurisdiction to determine the surplus area of petitioner No. 1. On 30th of November, 1966, respondent No. 1, suo motu, reviewed his previous order dated 24th November, 196b and revoked the same on the ground that he had erroneously remarked in the said order that the Special Collector, who had decided the case of the petitioner, had not been invested with the powers of a Collector under the Panjab Security of Land Tenures Rules 1956 (hereinafter called the Rules). A few days after he announced that order, he was informed by the Clerk of his Court that the Special Collector had in fact been invested with the powers of A Collector by Revenue Department notification No. 3802 ARlI(III -63/ 1083, dated the 30th April, 1963. On 20th May, 1967, respondent No. 1 then dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners. That led to the filing of the present writ petition on 7th June, 1967.

The only point urged by the counsel for the petitioners before me was that the learned Financial Commissioner had erred in law in reviewing his order dated 24th November, 1966. Sahi Ram petitioner''s total holding was situate in one district, namely Ferozepur, and therefore, in his case it was the Collector of that district alone who could determine the surplus area. The Special Collector had no jurisdiction to do so in his case. The Revenue Department notification dated 30th of April, 1963 was manifestly illegal, because the provisions of rule 2(iii-A) of the Rules contemplated the appointment of a Collector of the District and not for the whole of the State as was done by the said notification.

There is no merit in this contention and it was rightly rejected by the learned Financial Commissioner also in his order dated 30th November, 1966. It is true that Sahi Ram was holding land in one district only. It was conceded by the Learned Counsel appearing for the State that in such a contingency it was the Collector of that District alone, in which the said land was situate, who could determine the surplus area. ''Collector'' has been defined in rule 2 (iii-A) as: "Collector means the Collector of the District or any other officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, empowered in this behalf by the Government." In the instant case, the Government had, by issuing the notification dated 30th of April, 1963 in pursuance of the provisions of clause (iii A) of rule 2, empowered Shri Fateh Singh, Special Collector, to be the Collector for all the territories, which immediately before the 1st of November, 1&56, were comprised in the State of Punjab, to perform the functions assigned to the Collector under the said rules. The District of Ferozepur, it is common ground, was comprised in the State of Punjab immediately before the 1st of November 1966. It is undisputed that the Special Collector was not an officer who was below the rank of an Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. By virtue of the notification, therefore, Shri Fateh Singh, Special Collector, was specially empowered by the Government and he became a Collector of the Ferozepur district for the purpose of the rules and the Act. It was not necessary to mention in the notifications the various districts of Punjab whose Collector he had been appointed for the purpose of the Act and the rules. He had been empowered to act as the Collector for all the territories comprised in the State of Punjab, which concededly included the district of Ferozepur. When he was the Collector of the entire State for the purpose of the Act and the rules, it could not be said that he was not the Collector of the Ferozepur district which was a part of the State. He was, therefore, fully empowered to declare the surplus area of Sahi Ram, petitioner No. 1.

It may be mentioned that the Learned Counsel also pointed out that while signing the order dated 18th June, 1965, under the signatures, the words "Special Collector, Punjab" instead of ''Collector, Ferozepur'' bad been typed. This objection is pointless, because if once it is found that Shri Fafeh Singh was fully empowered to pass the order which he did, the mere fact that the typist had written the words Special Collector under his signatures is of no consequence, when in fact he was the Collector of Ferozepur district.

It is note worthy that the decision of the learned Financial Commissioner, on merits, declaring the surplu5 area of petitioner No. 1, had not been challenged. Therefore, it is clear that no injustice had been done to the petitioners. That being so, this Court would not interfere in proceedings, under article 226 of the Constitution with the said order, even if some technical defect, like the one pointed out by the petitioners, did actually exist.

No other point was urged by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners

The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.