A.N. Grover, J. - (1.) ACCORDING to the allegations in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Respondent No. 5 moved the Collector under Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1955 (to be referred to as the Act) for restoration of land on the ground that the Petitioner had illegally -occupied the same and his possession was wrongful and unauthorised. The Collector refused the prayer on the ground that possession had been delivered to the Petitioner by the Consolidation Officer in consolidation proceedings. On appeal, the Commissioner reversed the decision of the Collector and ordered the restoration of possession to Respondent No. 5. The Financial Commissioner in revision declined to interfere with the order of the Commissioner. The present petition is directed against the orders of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner.
(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that there was consolidation in the village of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 where the latter contended that he was a tenant and that the land comprising his tenancy should be allotted to him but the Consolidation Officer did not accede to that plea and allotted the land free of tenancy to the Petitioner. No appeal or revision was taken which became final. It was after the lapse of a period of four years that Respondent No. 5 applied to the Collector under Section 43 of the Act for restoration of the land comprising his alleged tenancy. The case of the Petitioner is that the possession of the disputed land had been delivered to him lawfully under the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and Section 43 of the Act in such circumstances could not possibly apply. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that apart from the facts stated above, even before the Collector it had been admitted that in the application which had been filed by Respondent No. 5 it was stated that possession had been delivered to the Petitioner by the Consolidation authorities. The Collector considered that since the possession had been delivered by the Consolidation authorities to the Petitioner, there was no question of any forcible dispossession. The Commissioner, however, found that according to the revenue record admittedly Respondent No. 5 had been in cultivating possession of the Khasra numbers in dispute prior to 1958. It had also been conceded before him that no order of ejectment had been obtained through a Court of law. The Commissioner proceeded to say - The object of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act is to provide security to the tenants and Section 43 affords summary remedy to a person who has been wrongfully dispossessed. The Appellant, therefore, has a right to continue on his tenancy.
(3.) FINALLY , the Commissioner remanded the case for further examination of the revenue record for determining the parcel of land to the possession of which Respondent No. 5 was entitled. Before the Financial Commissioner it had also been argued that Section 43 of the Act did not apply but he was not able to accept that view.;