AMIR CHAND Vs. THE PUNJAB STATE ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause (x) of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby rejecting the Appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, he refused to interfere with the order of the Financial Commissioner, dated 23rd January, 1964, passed in exercise of his powers under Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (Act X of 1953). The main question raised before us is whether an order against which an appeal lies can be revised by the Financial Commissioner under this provision.

(2.) BY his order, dated 23rd March, 1961, the Collector, Ferozepur, declared an area of 26 -8 1/4 S.A. of agricultural land held by the Appellant Amir Chand in village Dharampura, district Ferozepur; as surplus area. The entire land held by the Appellant was subject to a charge in favour of the Appellant's wife under the decree of a civil Court by which she had been awarded Rs. 43. per mensem as maintenance. Taking advantage of it; the Appellant urged before the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur, that no area should have been declared as surplus. Holding that 10 S.A. of. land would suffice to satisfy the claim of the Appellant's wife for maintenance, the learned Additional Commissioner modifying the order of the Collector, partly accepted the appeal and reduced the surplus area to 16 -8 1/4 S.A. Being still dissatisfied; the Appellant preferred a further appeal to the Financial Commissioner who while holding that the appeal was not competent, on sue mote exercise of his revisional powers not only found that the Appellant's claim had no merits, but further held that the Additional Commissioner had acted without jurisdiction indirecting the exclusion of 10 -8 1/4 S.A. of land from the Appellant's surplus area to meet the charge held by the Appellant's Wife for maintenance. This order of the learned Financial Commissioner, dated 23rd January, 1964, was assailed before the learned Single Judge on the grounds:

(3.) THOUGH the first contention prevailed with the learned Single Judge, he, however, refused to interfere holding that the Additional Commissioner had illegally interfered with the order of the Collector, and the Financial Commissioner having corrected that error, no injustice had been done to the Petitioner.