Prem Chand Pandit, J. - (1.) ON 15th April, 1953, Shrimati Ratno held land meaning 67 standard acres 4 1/2 units, in village Chauslewad, District Amritsar. On 4th April, 1960, the Collector, Surplus Area, declared land, measuring 37 standard acres 4 1/2 units, as surplus with her. Dharam Singh and others, to whom Ratno had sold some land, filed an appeal against the order of the Collector praying that the same be set aside as they were not heard before it was passed. This appeal was accepted by the Commissioner on 7th November, 1962, and he remanded the case to the Collector, Surplus Area, for a fresh decision. Meanwhile, Ratno died in March, 1962, and on her death, her estate was mutated in favour of Shrimati Balbir Kaur, Darbara Singh, Mohinder Singh and Dharam Singh on the basis of a registered will dated 24th October, 1957, which was alleged to have been executed by Ratno in their favour. On 14th October, 1964, the Collector declared land, measuring 10 standard acres 5 3/4 units, as surplus with Balbir Kaur. She preferred an appeal against this order on the ground that the tenancy areas of her old tenants had not been excluded by the Collector, while determining the surplus area. The Commissioner accepted her appeal on 17th May, 1965, and he again remanded the case to the Collector for deciding it de novo. On 6th April, 1966, the Collector, after excluding the tenancy area, measuring 5 standard acres 10 1/2 units, declared 4 standard acres and 11 1/4 units, as surplus with Balbir Kaur. Thereafter, one Karnail Singh filed an appeal against this order of the Collector before the Commissioner on the ground that surplus area to the extent of 4 standard acres and 6 1/2 units, had been allotted to him on 20th November, 1964, and its possession was also delivered to him on 30th November, 1964, and in spite of that he was not heard by the Collector. The Commissioner held the appeal of Karnail Singh to the barred by limitation, but treating it as a revision, he referred the case to the Financial Commissioner with the recommendation that the entire proceedings be quashed and the Collector be directed to hold the enquiry once again from the very beginning. The Commissioner was of the view that the disposition of the land under the registered will dated 24th October, 1957, was hit by the provisions of Section 10A(b) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, hereinafter called the Act, and the same could not be taken into consideration while assessing the surplus area of Ratno. The Financial Commissioner on 24th October, 1967; accepted the recommendation made by the Commissioner and remanded the case to the Collector with the direction that he should decide it afresh in accordance with law and after hearing all the interested parties, including the landowner, the tenants and the transferees if any. This order was challenged by Balbir Kaur by means of a writ petition, which she filed in this Court in January, 1968. The petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on December 19, 1969. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against that decision.
(2.) THE sole point argued before us was that after having held that the appeal of Karnail Singh was barred by limitation, the Commissioner could not have treated the same as a revision petition and then referred it to the Financial Commissioner. This, according to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, was contrary to the provisions of Section 24 of the Act and Rule 6(8) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The relevant provisions read thus: Section 24. The provision in regard to appeal, review and revision under this Act shall, so far as may be, be the same as provided in Sections 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (Act XVI of 1887). Rule 6(8). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Collector or the Special Collector may, within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision to such person, to be computed after excluding the time spent in obtaining a copy of such decision, appeal to: (a) the Commissioner of the Division where the person resides, in case the person resides in Ambala or Jullundur Division; (b) the Commissioner of the Division where the largest portion of the holding of the person is situate, in case the person resides outside Ambala and Jullundur Division; and the decision of the Commissioner which shall be duly communicated by the Commissioner to the Collector or Collectors concerned shall be final. The argument was that according to Rule 6(8), if a person was aggrieved by a decision of the Collector, he could, within 60 days, appeal to the Commissioner and the decision of the later would then be final, meaning thereby, that the aggrieved party could not then file a revision against it. Learned Counsel contended that under Section 24 of the Act, the provisions with regard to appeal, review and revision as given in Sections 80 to 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, would be applicable only if they were not inconsistent with any provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The argument proceeded that since under Rule 6(8), the decision of the Commissioner on appeal became final, therefore, it could not be revised by the Financial Commissioner and the provisions of Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act could not be brought into operation for that purpose.
(3.) IT is undisputed that if the provisions of Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act are applicable to the proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act by virtue of Section 24 of the Act, then the Commissioner in the instant case had the power to treat a time barred appeal before him as a revision and make a reference to the Financial Commissioner under the provisions of that Act. Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act reads: (1) The Financial Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue Officer or Revenue Court subordinate to him. (2) A Commissioner or Collector may call for the report of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue Officer or Revenue Court under his control. (3) If, in any case in which a Commissioner or Collector has called for a record he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or the order or decree made should be modified or reversed, he shall submit the record with his opinion on the case for the orders of the Financial Commissioner. (4) If, after examining a record called for by himself under Sub -section (1), or submitted to him under Sub -section (3), the Financial Commissioner is of opinion that it is inexpedient to interfere with the proceedings or the order or decree, he shall pass an order accordingly. (5) If, after examining the record, the Financial Commissioner is of opinion that it is expedient to interfere with the proceedings or the order or decree on any ground on which the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction may, under the law for the time being in force, interfere with proceedings or an order or decree of a Civil Court, he shall fix a day of hearing the case, and may, on that or any subsequent day to which he may adjourn the hearing or which he may appoint in this behalf, pass such order as he thinks fit in the case. (6) Except when the Financial Commissioner fixes under Sub -section (5) a day for hearing the case, no party has any right to be heard before the Financial Commissioner when exercising his powers under this section.;