- (1.) Sucha 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 orders of the Special Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, dated 10th April, 1963, 2nd July, 1963 and 25th April, 1964, (copies Annexures 'B', 'C' and 'D' to the petition respectively).
(2.) The only point that has been raised before me by Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the area measuring 6 Kanals and 5 Marlas, which was in possession of Hardam Singh, tenant, on 21st August, 1956, could not legally be declared surplus in the hands of the petitioner. The specific plea taken in the petition in this respect reads as under :- "6. (iv) That the learned Financial Commissioner has found that Hardam Singh was a tenant till 1956-57 in Khasra No. 140. In 1957-58 and onwards, the said Hardam Singh got this Khasra Number exchanged with Khasra No. 119. Both these Khasra Numbers have exactly the same area i.e. 6 Kanals 5 Marlas and consist of same kind of land i.e. Nehri Khalas. The relevant date for determination of the surplus area is 21-8-56 and on that date, as found by the learned Financial Commissioner, Hardam Singh was a tenant in Khasra No. 140. The land comprised in Khasra No. 140, therefore, could not be taken into consideration while computing the area of the petitioner. The later on acquisition of this land by the petitioner would not be of any effect as it came by exchange without resulting in any increase in holding of the petitioner."
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed before me that 6 Kanals and 5 Marlas of land was in possession of Hardam Singh tenant on 21st August, 1956. It is also not disputed that this area could not legally be declared surplus. The only contention of Mr. Chawla, learned counsel for the respondents, is that objection in this regard cannot be taken by the landowner and that this objection could only be taken by Hardam Singh tenant. I am afraid, I am unable to agree with this contention of Mr. Chawla. It is the land of the petitioner which is to be declared surplus. The petitioner being the land-owner, has a right to object to any order of the appropriate authority by which his area is being declared surplus not in accordance with law. The learned Financial Commissioner has gone wrong in refusing this relief to the petitioner on the ground that Hardam Singh tenant did not raise objection in this respect. As earlier observed, it is not disputed before me that 6 Kanals and 5 Marlas of land which was in possession of Hardam Singh tenant, could not legally be declared surplus. In this view of the matter, I have no other alternative but to modify the decision of the revenue authorities to the extent that 6 Kanals and 5 Marlas of land could not be declared surplus. To this extent the writ petition is allowed and impugned order of the revenue authorities are modified. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.;