Decided on October 31,1952

Bhajnu Appellant
Raiya Respondents


C C.CHOWDHRY,J. - (1.) THIS is an application to this Court by Bhajnu for setting aside the Judgment and decree of the Financial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh, dated 2 2 1952, in exercise of this Court's powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE petitioner as landlord applied to the Revenue Officer under Section 43, Punjab Tenancy Act, for ejectment of the respondent Raiya from land of which he stood recorded as a te nant at will. On the requisite notice of ejectment being served upon him, Raiya instituted a suit to contest his liability to ejectment on the ground that he was an occupancy tenant of the land. That suit was dismissed by the Assistant Collector 1st grade on 15 5 1951 on the ground that although Raiya had been in cultivatory possession of the land for 35 years or more, he had not acquired occupancy rights therein. Raiya was however awarded Rs. 1160/ as compensation under Section 70 of the Act. Raiya then filed an appeal to the Collector under Section 80 but the Collector dismissed, the appeal on 30 6 1951 affirming the findings of the trial Court on both the points. Thereafter Raiya went up in revision to the Financial Commissioner under Section 84 of the Act, and the Financial Commissioner passed the judgment which is now sought to be revised by Bhajnu. The learned Financial Commissioner allowed the revision, set aside the decisions of the Courts below and declared Raiya an occupancy tenant under Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act in the land in dispute.
(3.) A plethora of rulings was cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is not necessary to refer to all of them and it would be sufficient to cite the observations of Misra J. in 'Pambhi v. State', A. I. R. 1952 All. 526. This ruling followed amongst others a ruling of the Calcutta High Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself and reported as 'Dalmia Jain Airways v. Suku mar Mukherjee', A. I. R, 1951 Cal. 193 S. B.. It was laid down in the Allahabad ruling as follows: "The superintendence referred to in Article 227 does not invest the High Court with an unlimited prerogative to interfere in cases where a wrong decision has been arrived at either in fact or in law and the powers contained therein must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of any fundamental principles of law. The right to obtain relief under it depends further on the conditions that no other remedy is available to the applicant and the remedying of the wrong is essential in order to prevent very serious results." ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.