- (1.) The petitioners were holding land as tenants under respondent No. 5. On June 25, 1971, respondent No. 5 filed an application under Section 9(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act), for ejectment of the petitioners from the land comprising their tenancy. The application was made in form K-1 though it was not strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules inasmuch as the facts mentioned therein had not been verified by respondent No. 5. The ground on which the relief was claimed was that respondent No. 5 was a small landowner. The petitioners contested their liability to ejectment asserting that respondent No. 5 was not a small landowner and that they had installed a tubewell in the land and had made further improvements on the same. The Assistant Collector First Grade vide his order dated September 27, 1971, dismissed this application by holding that respondent No. 5 had not proved himself to be a small landowner. Against this order, respondent No. 5 went in appeal. On the memorandum of appeal the office of the Collector reported on November 9, 1971, that the appeal was barred by time and yet the Collector entertained the appeal and reversed the order pased by the Assistant Collector First Grade and remanded the case for the purpose of determining the compensation payable to the petitioners in respect of the improvements made by them. Against this order, the petitioners went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur, who vide his order dated April 24, 1973, remanded the case and ordered that respondent No. 5 be allowed to amend his form K-1. It was further ordered that in case the form was amended, the parties should be allowed an opportunity of leading further evidence on the point whether respondent No. 5 was a small landowner or not and the case be re-decided in the light of these findings. The revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, vide his order dated July 12, 1973, on the ground that "no prejudice appears to have been caused to both the parties who may prove their respective claims before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Jullundur, on all the points". The tenant-petitioners have challenged the order dated December 27, 1971, passed by the Collector, Jullundur, the order dated April 24, 1973, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, and the order dated July 12, 1973, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, in this petition.
(2.) Before the Additional Commissioner, three points were specifically argued. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the application had not been made in proper form, the appeal filed before the Collector was barred by time and respondent No. 5 had not proved himself to be a small landowner. On these points the observations made by the Additional Commissioner may be noticed. On the question of formal defect in form K-1, she observed as under :- "The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act prescribes the shape of form K-1 under Rule 13 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, read with Section 9(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, on which a small landowner is required to apply for the dispossession of his tenant liable to ejectment; and in this form a solemn affirmation is prescribed. The application is also required to be dated. These are mandatory provisions of law, and it is not the discretion of the applicant or of the Court to dispense with this form, or to obtain the required and relevant information on some other form. In the present case, the landowner has not solemnly affirmed that the particulars given by him in form K-1 are true to the best of his knowledge, as he is supposed to do under the law. This is a material irregularity." On the question whether respondent No. 5 was a small landowner or not, she observed as under :- "It is admitted by the landowner in the cross-examination that he owned other land besides the land, a mention of which has been made by him in form K-1. He also stated that he had sold off his land since then. He has also stated that he does not know as to how much area he owned in terms of standard acres. In view of this, it cannot certainly be said that he has proved himself to be a small landowner. He should have stated categorically that his area came to be so many standard acres and units, and that this area was within the prescribed limit of 30 standard acres; and that he was, therefore, entitled to get the tenants ejected on the ground of being a small landowner. If the learned Collector had to pass orders of ejectment on the ground of the present respondent being a small landowner, he should have at least held an enquiry into the area, which he had admitted to have inherited and which he admitted to have sold off in his cross-examination; and to see as to whether this sale has been hit or not by the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. It is not the duty of a tenant to prove the landlord's case." On the point of limitation, she observed as under :- "A perusal of the appeal file of the learned Collector reveals that the appeal before him was time barred, and the Ahlmad to the learned Collector had pointed it out in his note that the appeal was time barred. Inspite of this the learned Collector has heard it on merits without receiving any application from the landowner for condonation of delay, and without passing any order condoning the delay for the late filing of the appeal. It is futile to say at this stage that the landowner was not aware of the delay in the filing of the appeal by him in view of the clear note on the file that the appeal was time barred. The late filing of the appeal is a question of law and it can be taken up at any stage in view of the case law cited as under :- 1. Rama Shankar Singh and others V. Mst. Shyamlata Devi and others, 1970 AIR(SC) 716 2. Karam Chand Moola Ram and others V. Telu Ram and others, 1968 AIR(P&H) 473. 3. Habid Teli and others V. Ali Teli and others V.,1968 AIR(J&K) 9. 4. Raj Kumar Lukhoisana Singh and others V. Ayekpam Ango Singh and others,1958 AIR(Mani) 7. 5. Santa Singh Gopal Singh and others V. Rajinder Singh Bur Singh and others, 1965 AIR(P&H) 415. The learned Collector's order, therefore, deserves to be set aside on this ground also."
(3.) Obviously, on all the points argued before her, the Additional Commissioner found in favour of the petitioners. It has now to be seen whether the order of remand causes any prejudice to the petitioners or not, because it has been argued by Mr. Sarin, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5, that the determination of the question whether the appeal had been filed within the permissible time or not was within the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act and it was not open to this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of certiorari for correcting an erroneous order of the domestic Tribunal on the point of limitation. In support of this submission, the learned counsel has relied upon Ebrahim Aboobakar and another V. Custodian General of Evacuee Property, New Delhi, 1952 AIR(SC) 319. In this very authority it has been laid down that certiorari should not issue in a case in which the petitioner has failed to establish that manifest injustice has been done to him.;