RAJESH BINDAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated December 26, 1978 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and order dated September 01, 1982 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab in proceedings under Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short "the Act").
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts, as pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner on the appointed date i.e. January 24, 1971 had 28.87.12 ordinary hectares of Barani agricultural land. As per the provisions of Act, he was entitled to retain one unit of 7 hectare of 1st quality land, which is equivalent to 20-5 ordinary hectares of Barani land. Before the Collector (Agrarian), he submitted that two pieces of land measuring 52 Bighas 7 Biswas were sold by him to Paramjit Singh, Harbans Singh, Isher Singh and Harjit Singh on January 10, 1974 with a view to construct his house and enable him to make improvement on the land. The transactions being bona fide even though made after the commencement of the Act on April 2, 1973, the land involved therein deserved to be excluded for the purpose of declaration of surplus area. The Collector (Agrarian) while excluding the sales made by the petitioner, on April 10, 1975 held that thereafter the petitioner was left with only 20-24-42 ordinary hectares of land, which was less than 7 hectare of 1st quality of land. Accordingly, there was no surplus area. Aggrieved against the order of the Collector, Agrarian, the State filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, which was dismissed in default on October 25, 1978 and no application for restoration thereof was filed.
(3.) HOWEVER , on a reference by the Collector (Agrarian), Commissioner vide order dated December 26, 1978 permitted him to review the order passed by his predecessor on April 10, 1975. This order of Commissioner was impugned before the Financial Commissioner, who also rejected the revision vide order dated September 1, 1982. In reply to the petition, the orders challenged in the petition have been justified reiterating the reasoning on which the Financial Commissioner rejected the revision filed by the petitioner.;