NIRMALJIT KAUR,J. - (1.) The petitioners, who are the sons of Santa Singh, the land owner, are seeking quashing of the order dated 24.08.1994 (Annexure P-9), whereby, the revision petition of respondents No.3 to 12, who are the allottees has been accepted. The facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are that the proceedings for determination of surplus area permissible were started against the father of the petitioners-Santa Singh under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1955 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act"). Ultimately, 195 K 5 M of land was declared surplus by the Collector Agrarian Barnala vide his order dated 10.07.1961. Although the suit was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction, the trial Court gave specific finding with respect to issue No.4 i.e the father of the petitioners was in possession of the land. The judgment and decree of the trial Court were challenged in the Civil Appeal. The Appellate Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the father of the petitioners that he should not be dispossessed. However, the said appeal was dismissed on 19.06.1965. Santa Singh, the father of the petitioners filed R.S.A No.853 of 1965. This Court vide order dated 02.05.1965 stayed the dispossession of the deceased. Meanwhile, Santa Singh had been dispossessed after the dismissal of the appeal by the First Appellate Court and before the stay was granted by the High Court in R.S.A on 02.07.1965. The R.S.A was allowed by the learned Single Bench of this Court vide order and judgment dated 01.02.1972. The findings on other issues were not disputed before the High Court and the High Court set aside the findings of the Courts below on issues No.1 and 7. The High Court held that the order, whereby, the surplus area was declared, was void, ineffective and unenforceable. It was, however, observed that the Collector could decide the matter de-novo in accordance with law. In the meantime, the father of the petitioners had died and the petitioners were brought as legal representatives in R.S.A. Accordingly, the case was taken up by the Collector Agrarian, Barnala after the decision of this Court in R.S.A. Assessment of surplus area was taken up by the Collector. Since, Santa Singh had died by this time, the Collector, therefore, held that the order of the determination of surplus area being no more in existence, there was no surplus area in the hands of legal heirs. He further held that the proceedings regarding determination of surplus area de-novo had become fructuous because Santa Singh had died on 15.07.1971. As the land had ceased to be surplus area, so the Collector vide his order dated 25.03.1974 ordered that the surplus area be restored to the petitioners. The State did not challenge the order. The same therefore attained finality. However, the allottees filed an application for review of the order of the Collector Agrarian dated 25.03.1974. This review was recommended by the Commissioner. The order of the Commissioner, whereby, he had sanctioned that the Collector may review the order, was challenged by the petitioners in R.O.R. No.84-85. The Financial Commissioner dismissed the review and held that the order of the Collector Agrarian dated 26.03.1974 could not be reviewed but observed that the same could only be challenged in revision. The respondent-allottees moved application to the Collector for reference of revision against the order dated 25.03.1974 of the Collector. The same was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 19.05.1986. The respondent-allottees filed an appeal before the Commissioner under Section 32(d)(3) of the Act. This appeal was heard by the Commissioner, Patiala under the said Act. He, too, vide his order 17.11.1987 (Annexure P-8) held that there was no surplus area. Thereafter, the petitioners filed revision against the order of the Commissioner before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner, however, set aside the order dated 25.03.1974 vide impugned order dated 24.08.1994.
(2.) While impugning the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 24.08.1994, it was contended by Mr. Sarjit Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, firstly on the ground that the Financial Commissioner had ignored the order of the High Court and the Financial Commissioner had absolutely no jurisdiction to pass a contrary order to the judgment passed by this Court.
(3.) Secondly, the matter pertains to surplus area. As such, under Section 32(d)(3) of the Act, the appeal/revision is to be heard only by the State Government. In the present case, the revision against the order of the Commissioner dated 17.11.1987 was passed by him as delegate of the State Government was passed under Section 32(d)(3) of the Act. Thus, the revision against the order was not maintainable before the Financial Commissioner as the Commissioner had passed the order as delegate of the State Government. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case titled as Sukhdarshan Singh v. State of Punjab reported as 1979 P.L.J. 393.;