- (1.) This is a letters patent appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge dated March 25, 1975, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The relevant facts for this appeal in short are that on April 5, 1965, respondent No. 4 Alia filed an application for acquisition of proprietary rights of land measuring 11 standard acres 12 units in Malerkotla as a tenant against its owner respondent No. 5 Madan Rikh Pook. During the pendency of the application, respondent No. 5 made a gift of the land in favour of the appellant vide gift deed dated July 19, 1965. The appellant approached the Assistant Collector before whom the acquisition of proprietary rights proceedings were pending, vide application Annexure 'B' praying that he may be allowed to be made a party to the proceedings. The Assistant Collector declined the prayer vide his order dated September 27, 1965. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Collector which was dismissed. His revision before the Financial Commissioner also met the same fate. He then filed C.W.P. No. 791 of 1966, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated March 25, 1975. It is against this order that the present letters patent appeal is directed.
(3.) The Financial Commissioner placed reliance on Pritam Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1966 PunLJ 83, for dismissing the revision of the appellant. This judgment was over-ruled in Harnek Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1971 PunLJ 727. The learned Single Judge took notice of Harnek Singh's case and observed that it had no application to the facts of the present case because that authority dealt with the surplus land and the present case is entirely different. The learned Single Judge held that if the appellant was allowed to be impleaded as a party, it would cause a great hardship. It may even prejudice the tenant to an extent that his application may be dismissed because the appellant-society being a charitable society may claim exemption of its land under Section 51 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).;