- (1.) Soma Nand and others have 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 Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, dated 29th March, 1966 and 19th August, 1966 (copies Annexures 'B' and 'C' to the petition respectively).
(2.) The facts of this case, as given in the petition, may be stated thus :- The petitioners are sons of respondent No. 5, who is a landowner holding different parcels of land in several villages of Tehsil Nakodar, District Jullundur. The petitioners are tenants under the said respondent No. 5 before coming into force of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is also stated, in the petition that the case regarding the determination of the permissible area of respondent No. 5, was taken by the Collector, Jullundur, who vide his order dated 29th February, 1960, declared an area to the extent of 25-10-1/2 Standard Acres as surplus. This order was, however, set aside by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur, vide his order dated 19th December, 1962, on an appeal filed by the petitioners and the case was remanded to the Collector for a fresh decision. On remand, the Collector, Jullundur, assessed the surplus area with respondent No. 5 to the extent of 4-13 Standard Acres only vide his order dated 29th April, 1963, and the remaining area measuring 20-101/2 Standard Acres was left as permissible area with the tenants including the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved from The order of the Collector, Hari Singh, respondent No. 4, filed an appeal which was accepted by the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, and the case was remanded to the Collector with a direction to pass a fresh order in pursuance of the earlier order of the Additional Commissioner dated 18th December, 1962. After remand, the case was again taken up by the Collector, Jullundur, who after making a thorough enquiry, held that area to the extent of 16.103/4 Standard Acres could not be declared surplus being the tenants' permissible area, vide his order dated 7th December, 1964 (copy Annexure 'A' to the petition). It was also held that respondent No. 5 was holding only an area to the extent of 7-3/4 Units. It is further stated that Hari Singh, who had no locus standi to file any appeal against the order of the Collector, he being not an aggrieved person, filed an appeal which was accepted by the Commissioner, respondent No. 3, vide his order dated 29th March, 1966 (copy Annexure 'B' to the petition), by which an area to the extent of 17.21/2 Standard Acres was, declared surplus in the hands of respondent No. 5. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the learned Commissioner, the petitioners and respondent No. 5 preferred two separate appeals but the same were dismissed by the learned Financial Commissioner by one consolidated order dated 19th August, 1966 (copy Annexure 'C' to the petition). As earlier observed, it is the legality and property of the orders of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner that have been challenged by way of this petition.
(3.) Written statement in the shape of an affidavit has been filed by Hari Singh, respondent No. 4, in which the material allegations made in the petition have been controverted.;