Surja vs The Financial Commissioner and Others

A.N. Grover, J.—This judgment will dispose of all the three petitions (Civil Writs Nos. 1889 of 1960, 486 of 1961 and 487 of 1961). The facts in Civil Writ 486 of 1961 need only be stated.

Milawa Ram, who was the landlord, filed an application u/s 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (to be referred to as the Act) seeking ejectment of the Petitioner from land measuring 35 kanals and 2 marlas in village Bhurtana on the ground that he was a small land-owher and the tenant had under his cultivation more than 5 standard acres of land belonging to the other owners. Milawa Ram, landlord had originally been allotted 26 standard acres and 8| units of land and according to what is stated in his petition 57 kanals had been acquired by him by pre-emption.

On 21st December, 1959, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Hissar, dismissed the landlord''s application holding that on the date of the application he ; held more than 30 standard acres of land and, therefore, he was a big land-owner. The landlord went up in appeal to the Collector, who allowed his appeal by his order, dated 2nd May, 1960 and directed ejectment of the tenant. The Collector held that the landlord was a small land-owner and he could maintain the application for ejectment. The tenant failed in Ms appeal before the Commissioner as also the revision petition which he had preferred before the Financial Commissioner. He has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the orders adverse to him.

Now, it appears that the Collector as also the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner followed an earlier decision reported as Shrimati Lal Devi v. Hardit Singh 1959 L.L.T. 39. There it had been held by the Financial Commissioner that the conversion of land into standard acres "must be at the time it was permanently transferred to the allottee-landowner and not subsequently". A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution had been filed in this Court challenging that decision but the same had been dismissed limine, (Civil Writ No. 735 of 1959). Later on, however, in another petition (Bhagwana v. The Financial Commissioner and Anr. Civil Writ No. 1021 of 1958), which was decided on the merits by S.B. Capoor, J. on 4th September, 1959, the learned Judge after examining all the relevant provisions of the Act gave a decision which Was contrary to what had been held by the Financial Commissioner in Shrimati Lal Debi v. Hardit Singh 1959 L.L.T. 39. He expressed the view that the permissible area must be reckoned according to the valuation in terms of the standard acres of the land with the land-owner at the time he makes an application for eviction.. Against the order of Capoor J., a Letters Patent appeal was preferred (L.P.A. 290 of 1959), which was dismissed in limine by a Bench of which my Lord the Chief Justice was a member. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, against the order of dismissal by the Bench was sought under Article 133 of the Constitution but the leave was also not granted. It is mentioned in the order of the Commissioner himself that the aggrieved party-approached the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal but even that permission was not granted. Notwithstanding all this the Commissioner chose to follow the decision of the learned Financial Commissioner in Shrimati Lal Devi v. Hardit Singh 1959 L.L.T. 39, and not the judgment of S.B. Capoor, J. which should be taken to have been upheld by the Letters Patent Bench and which became final on the point after the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court as also the application for special leave which had been filed to their Lordships. It is somewhat surprising that the Commissioner was of the view that since the writ petition filed against the decision of the Financial Commissioner in Shrimati Lal Devi v. Hardit Singh 1959 L.L.T. 39, had been dismissed in limine this Court had made a pronouncement on the correctness or otherwise of that decision. No appeal had been brought to this Court against that decision of the Financial Commissioner and merely because the extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 were invoked it could not possibly be held that the Financial Commissioner''s view had received the imprimature of this Court. The following part of the order of the learned Financial Commissioner may be set out:

My attention has been drawn to Civil Writ No. 1021 of 1958, dated the 4th Septemer, 1959, wherein the learned judge took the view that the ''permissible area'' of a landowner must be reckoned at the time he makes an application for eviction. With the utmost deference to the learned judge, I feel, that I would be justified in adhering to my original view expressed in Shrimati Lal Devi v. Hardit Singh 1959 L.L.T. 39, which has been upheld by a Division Bench in Civil Writ No. 735 of 1959.

As stated before, no decision had been given by the Court in Civil Writ No. 735 of 1959 and the only view that had finally prevailed is the one expresed by S.B. Capoor, J. It may be pointed out that the decisions given by this Court are binding on the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner and ought to have been followed.

The learned Additional Advocate-General, sought to assail the correctness of the view expressed by Capoor, J. but since even their Lordships of the Supreme Court have declined to grant special leave against that decision, it would not be right or proper to allow him to re-open the matter. Thus it must be held that the relevant period for seeing whether a landowner is a small landowner or not for the purposes of deciding an application u/s 14-A is the date of the application in respect of which the permissible area has to be reckoned according to the valuation in terms of the standard acres of the land in the possession of the land-owner. It is common ground that all these petitions must succeed for that reason".

In the result, all these petitions are allowed and the orders made against the Petitioners in all the writ petitions which regard to their eviction are hereby quashed. The Petitioner shall be entitled to their costs which we assess at Rs. 75 in each case.