- (1.) Madho Singh has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order of the Assistant Collector, Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, dated the 25th January, 1966, 19th April, 1966, 2nd August, 1967 and 8th February, 1968 (Copies Annexures 'A', 'B', 'C', 'C-1' 'D' and 'D-1' to the petition) respectively. The facts of this case may briefly be stated thus :- The petitioner who is a displaced person from West Pakistan, was allotted land measuring 43 Standard Acres and 31 Units in village Badshahpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, in lieu of the land left by him in West Pakistan. Sundal) and Prabhu, respondents 2 and 3 filed an application against the petitioner, under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for purchase of land under their tenancy, before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Gurgaon, which was allowed by him on the 25th January, 1956 (copy Annexure 'A' to the petition). Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Gurgaon, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by the Collector, Gurgaon, on 19th April, 1966 (copy Annexure 'B' to the petition). Still dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, but that was also dismissed on the 2nd August, 1967 (copy Annexure 'C' to the petition). The second revision petition also met the same fate and was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 8th February, 1968 (Copy Annexure 'D' to the petition). earlier observed, it is the legality and propriety of these orders of the appropriate authorities which have been challenged by way of this petition on the grounds stated therein.
(2.) Written Statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, by Sundal, respondent No. 2, in the shape of an affidavit in which material allegations made in the petition have been controverted.
(3.) It was contended by Mr. Sarin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to deal with the legality and propriety of the proceedings relating to the declaration of the surplus area of the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act, that the revenue authorities assumed jurisdiction which was not vested in them by going into the question of the legality of the surplus proceedings and that the impugned orders, in this situation, could not legally be sustained. On the other hand it was contended by Mr. U.D. Gaur, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 that this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner should not be allowed to be raised at the time of arguments as on this aspect of the matter no plea has been taken by the petitioner in this writ petition.;