SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17.11.1997 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide which he has accepted the review application filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 for reviewing the order dated 19.4.1993 passed by him.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondents No. 2 and 3 are the landlords and the petitioner is an ejected tenant. The aforesaid respondents filed separate ejectment applications against the petitioner under Section 9(1)(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming themselves to be small land owners. The petitioner was ordered to be ejected from the land measuring 3 kanals owned by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 21.8.1978 and from 2 kanals 13 marlas of land owned by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 21.6.1979 on the grounds that the aforesaid respondents were the small land owners. The aforesaid ejectment orders were subject to re-settlement of the petitioner on equivalent available land from the surplus pool. The Collector (Agrarian), Gurdaspur, vide his order dated 14.4.1981 allotted the equivalent land to the petitioner from the surplus pool but the petitioner himself got the said allotment cancelled by saying that the said land is of inferior quality and of lessor value. For the second time, the allotment of equivalent land from the surplus pool was again made in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 15.11.1989, but again the petitioner himself got the said allotment cancelled on the same ground by making an application dated 11.1.1990 (Annexure R2/1). In the said application, the petitioner submitted that the land allotted to him in Village Kahnuwan vide order dated 15.11.1989 was of very low price and of poor quality and the same is about 20 Kms. away from his residence. In that application, he also prayed that some surplus lands of big land owners which are to be allotted to the ejected tenant are also available in Village Gurdaspur and Village Aujla. He gave specific Khasra numbers of the land available for allotment in both these Villages, from which he requested that he may be allotted the land, as he is only to be allotted 5 Kanals 13 marlas of land. By taking into consideration the aforesaid application of the petitioner, the Collector (Agrarian) vide his order dated 10.10.1990 (Annexure R2/2) allotted 5 kanals 13 marlas of land to the petitioner in Village Aujla as per the request made by him. The land in village Gurdaspur, as suggested by the petitioner, was found in occupation of the Armed forces, therefore, the same could not be allotted to him. But in spite of the fact that the petitioner was allotted the land of his choice at Village Aujla, he did not accept the aforesaid allotment made by the Collector (Agrarian) and preferred an appeal against the said order dated 10.10.1990 before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. In appeal, the petitioner submitted that he should be allotted the land in Village Gurdaspur, as though it has been shown in possession of the Armed Forces but it is not owned by them. He further submitted that the land allotted to him in Village Aujla is not at par with the land at Village Gurdaspur. He urged that under the provisions of the Act, he should be allotted the land in the area where he resides. The learned Commissioner, after considering the contention raised by the petitioner, dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 22.1.1992 (Annexure P-1), after holding that the proposed land situated in Village Gurdaspur is in possession of the Armed Forces and the same cannot be allotted to any person. It was also observed that since the petitioner was allotted available surplus land in Village Aujla as per his request, being ejected tenant, therefore there is no ground to interfere in the order dated 10.10.1990 passed by the Collector (Agrarian) allotting the equivalent surplus land in Village Aujja to the petitioner being an ejected tenant.
(3.) AGAINST that order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner by submitting that he should be allotted the land in Village Gurdaspur. He submitted that though the said land is in possession of the Armed Forces but their possession is of temporary nature and he will take the actual physical possession of the land when the Armed Forces will vacate the same, therefore, he should be allotted the land at Village Gurdaspur. The learned Financial Commissioner, vide his order dated 19.4.1993 (Annexure P-3), allowed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, while observing as under :- "I am not in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Collector Agrarian, Gurdaspur and by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division that there is no land available being under occupation of the army/para-military forces temporarily, as it has neither been acquired nor requisitioned. Military has temporarily settled down keeping in view the prevailing situation in Punjab as per their strategy and availability of open space. So the land in their occupation can be allotted to the petitioner. Agreeing with the counsel for the petitioner, it is ordered that an area equal to the area from which the petitioner has been ejected be finally allotted to him in Gurdaspur, which is under temporary occupation of army/para-military forces. After the allotment, possession on the papers be given to the petitioner. He is prepared to vacate the land of the respondents as and when army/para-military forces vacate the land in question. Petitioner be given physical possession as per his request. As requested by the counsel for the respondents, it is further ordered that all these formalities be completed and finalised within 3 months so that the respondents, who are small landowners, do not suffer. In view of the above, the revision petition is accepted and impugned orders of Collector Agrarian, Gurdaspur are set aside." Against the aforesaid order, on 19.7.1993, respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a review application (Annexure P-4) under Section 24 of the Act read with Section 82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 for reviewing the order passed by the Financial Commissioner on the grounds that possession of the Armed Forces on the available surplus land in Village Gurdaspur is not temporary, rather their possession is permanent as they are in possession of the same for the last many years. In this regard, jamabandis for the year 1963-64, 1969-70, 1974-75, 1979-80, 1984-85 and 1980-90 were produced on record. Respondents No. 2 and 3 further submitted that the observation made by learned Financial Commissioner that the available surplus land in Village Gurdaspur, is only in temporary occupation of the Armed Forces is a mistake which is apparent on the record and due to that mistake, the petitioner was ordered to be allotted land in Village Gurdaspur, which was wrongly held to be in temporary occupation of the Armed Forces. In the said application, respondents No. 2 and 3 further submitted that in the order dated 19.4.1993, it was further ordered that after the said allotment, possession of the land in Village Gurdaspur be given to the petitioner, but he will vacate the land of the respondents only when the Armed Forces will vacate the land allotted to them. They submitted that since the Armed Forces are not likely to vacate the land in Village Gurdaspur, therefore, the petitioner will never vacate their land, from which he has been ordered to be ejected.;