- (1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It arises out of these facts : Chhinku Ram petitioner is a displaced person from West Pakistan. He was allotted 52.77 standard acres of land in the revenue estate of village Bhirana, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hissar, in lieu of the land left behind by him and his deceased father, Hira Ram, in West Pakistan. By an order, dated 24.3.1961 (Annexure 'A') (All references are to the Annexures to the writ-petition), the Collector, purporting to act under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act') allowed the petitioner to retain only 100 ordinary acres, instead of 50 standard acres of land, as his permissible area and declared the petitioner's land, measuring 2.63 ordinary acres, as his 'surplus area'. Against that order of the Collector, Chhinku Ram did not file any appeal or revision before the Commissioner or any other higher authority. He, however, filed an application on 25.4.1964, before the Collector for the review of his order, dated 24.3.1961. This review-petition was dismissed by the Collector on 10.6.1964. (This fact is not mentioned in the writ-petition, but is apparent from the departmental records). On 16.8.1965, a second application for review was made by the petitioner to the Collector (Agrarian). This was also dismissed by the Collector on 29.11.1966. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred a revision-petition before the Collector, who, by an order, dated 5.7.1967, recommended to the Financial Commissioner that the order, dated 24.3.1961, be revised and the applicant's permissible area be re-asessed at 50 standard acres. This revision was, however, dismissed by the Financial Commissioner by an order, dated 23.3.1968 (Annexure 'D'), with the observation that the declaration of the permissible/surplus area made in this case was correct according to law then prevailing and that the mere fact that subsequently another view was taken in Khan Chand V. The State of Punjab,1966 LLT 84(Full Bench), was no ground for reviewing the matter. The petitioner impugns that order of the Financial Commissioner and prays for a writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned orders, Annexures 'A', 'B' and 'D'.
(2.) In the affidavit filed by Shri L. Isa Dass, Deputy Secretary to Government, Haryana, on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is alleged that the impugned orders were quite correct and could not be reviewed simply for the reason that subsequently, a Full Bench of this Court in Khan Chand's case gave a different interpretation of the law from that prevailing at the time of the assessment of the permissible area of the petitioner. In reply to Para 6(i) of the petition, it was alleged that 52 standard acres and 12-1/2 units of land had been inherited by the petitioner from his father, Hira Ram, mutation in respect of which was sanctioned in the petitioner's favour on 16.2.1954 on the basis of an entry, dated 13.9.1953, in the Patwari's Roznamcha. It was hinted that since the petitioner's father died sometime in 1953, Chhinku Ram could not claim a displaced person's rights in regard to the land inherited by him from his father.
(3.) In his separate return, Moola, respondent 3, reiterated that objection that the petitioner was not entitled to the rights of a displaced person in respect of the land inherited by him from his father, Hira Ram, in 1953. He pointed out that the review-application filed by the petitioner on 16.8.1965, before the Collector, Surplus Area, was time-barred by 4 years 4 months and 12 days and was rightly dismissed by the Collector on 29.11.1966.;