Man Mohan Singh Gujral, J. - (1.) ABNASHI Lal petitioner No. 1 was a displaced person from West Pakistan and was allotted 46 standard acres and 8 1/2 units of land in village Jalalabad. The petitioners uncle Gobind Sahai died in India in November 1947 and in lieu of the land left by him petitioner No. 1 and his other uncle were allotted 46 standard acres and 3 1/2 units of land in village Jalalabad. The petitioner's total holding thus came to be 70 standard acres and 73/4 units in 1953 when the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter called the Act) came into force. In 1955 in a family settlement petitioner No. 2, who is the son of petitioner No. 1, got 212 kanals and 4 marlas of land and the latter then brought a suit and obtained a decree in respect of this land. Petitioner No. 2 (Harkishan Lal) then got a mutation entered in his name and was subsequently shown as owner of this land. Similarly, Kesan Bai, the mother of petitioner No. 1, also brought a suit and obtained a decree for her share of the land. On the basis of this decree mutation in respect of 99 kanals 3 marlas of land was entered in the name of Kesan Bai in 1959. As earlier to that Kesan Bai had died leaving a will in favour of petition No. 2, mutation of inheritance respect of this land was entered in the name of the latter.
(2.) ON the 16th June 1958 petitioner No. 1 filed a declaration before the Collector, Ferozepore, showing that he was holding less than 50 standard acres of land and consequently had no surplus area. Subsequently on 7th November 1958 Abnashi Lal sold 113 kanals 10 marlas of land to Gurbax Singh Sub -Inspector, Judicial lock -up, Gidderbaha, but as he was a Government servant he got the sale deed executed in the name of his wife Joginder Kaur respondent No. 1. In view of the position taken by him that he had no surplus land, petitioner No. 1 did not exercise his right of reservation in 1953 when the Act came into force or his right of selection in 1958. The concerned authorities, however, started proceedings under the Act and the rules made thereunder for the assessment of the surplus area of Abnashi Lal and as a result of these proceedings the Collector found the land measuring 11 standard acres and 3/4 unit was surplus with petitioner No. 1. In these proceedings acting under section 5 -B of the Act the Collector also proceeded to allocate the permissible area of the petitioner by order dated 6th May 1964. The principal question that arose for determination in these proceedings was whether the land sold to respondent No. I should be shown as the reserved area of petitioner No. 1 or his surplus area and considering that no fraud had been played on the vendee the Collector came to the conclusion that this area could not be considered as part of the reserved area of the landowner. Feeling aggrieved by this order, respondent No. 1 filed an appeal which was heard by the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, on 16th July 1965 and was dismissed by order, copy of which is Annexure F to the 'writ petition. Not deterred by these failures, respondent No. 1 then filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which was decided by order, copy of which is Annexure G. By this order the stand taken by respondent No. 1 was accepted by the Financial Commissioner and it was directed that the land sold to Joginder Kaur must be demarcated after the land which was the reserved area of Abnashi Lal and his son petitioner No. 2. The case was then remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Fazilka to take action in the light of this direction. Abnashi Lal and petitioner No. 2 then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Financial Commissioner on the grounds that it was wholly without jurisdiction and disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record.
(3.) THE petition was contested by respondent No. 1 and it was asserted that the Collector had wrongly declared the land purchased by Gurbax Singh as surplus area and that the order of the Financial Commissioner was perfectly legal and had been passed in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him by law. The petition was also contested by respondents 2 to 4 through the affidavit of Shri Amarjit Singh, Under Secretary to Government, Punjab, Revenue Department, and most of the facts stated in the petition were admitted. It was, however, asserted that the Financial Commissioner had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.;