- (1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution arises out of the following circumstances. Smt. Ratno was the original landowner of the land measuring 67 Standard Acres and 4-1/4 Units on April 15, 1953. The Collector, Patti, by an order, dated April 4, 1960, declared 37 Standard Acres and 4-1/4 Units of Smt. Ratno's land as surplus area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, Punjab Act 10 of 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On October 24, 1957, Smt. Ratno had executed a will bequeathing her entire landed estate to Smt. Balbir Kaur, the writ petitioner, and three others in different shares. Thereafter, in March, 1962, Smt. Ratno died. Dharam Singh and others claiming themselves to be purchasers of a certain portion of the land from Smt. Ratno deceased, preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Collector, dated April 4, 1960, to the Commissioner, Jullundur, who, by an order, dated November 7, 1962, allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision. After the remand, the Collector declared, by an order, dated October, 14, 1964, 10 Standard Acres and 5-3/4 Units of the land as surplus area out of the 40 Standard Acres and 5-3/4 Units, which on the death of Smt. Ratno, had, on the basis of the aforesaid will, been mutated in the writ petitioner's favour. Against that order, dated October 14, 1964, of the Collector, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, who by an order, dated May 17, 1965, accepted the same and remanded the case to the Collector for a de novo assessment of the surplus area. After the second remand, the Collector, by an order, dated April 6, 1966, (copy Annexure 'A' to the writ petition), declared 4 Standard Acres and 11-1/4 Units of the land as surplus area. Against this order, dated April 6, 1966, Karnail Singh respondent No. 3, who had been settled on this land earlier by the Collector, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Jullundur, who, on March 21, 1967, held that the appeal was time-barred by 42 days, but at the same time converted the appeal into a revision petition on the ground that, for the purposes of assessing the surplus area, the testamentary disposition made by Smt. Ratno in favour of Smt. Balbir Kaur writ petitioner and others had to be ignored altogether as it was hit by the provisions of Section 10-A(b) of the Act, and the Collector in not giving effect to the aforesaid provision had committed an error of law. He, therefore, referred the case to the Financial Commissioner with the recommendation that the entire proceedings conducted in this case by the Collector be quashed and the case remanded to the Collector with the direction that he should hold de novo enquiry and decide the case afresh according to law. The Financial Commissioner, by his order, dated October 24, 1967 (copy Annexure 'C' to the writ petition), accepted the reference, and, in the exercise of his revisional powers, set aside the decision of the Collector and remanded the case to the Collector for a de novo assessment of the surplus area after hearing all the persons interested. Smt. Balbir Kaur in this writ petition has impugned the order, dated March 21, 1967, of the Commissioner (copy Annexure 'B' to the writ petition), and the order, dated October 24, 1967, of the Financial Commissioner (copy Annexure 'C' to the writ petition), on these grounds - (a) The provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1962 (Punjab Act 14 of 1962), were not retrospective, and since the testamentary disposition in favour of the petitioner was made before the Amending and Validation Act (Punjab Act 14 of 1962) was passed, in view of the Single Bench Judgment of this Court in Gurcharan Singh and others V. The State of Punjab and another, 1967 CurLJ 674, the bequeathed land had to be excluded while assessing the surplus area from the holding of Smt. Ratno. (b) That the petitioner got this land, measuring 40 Standard Acres and 5-3/4 Units, on the basis of a registered will, dated October 24, 1957, by way of acceleration of succession, and that consequently the provisions of Section 10-A(b) of the Act could not be invoked; and (c) since the appeal of Karnail Singh respondent 3 before the Commissioner against the Collector's order was clearly time-barred by 42 days, the Commissioner had no power or jurisdiction to treat the same as a revision petition. This objection was also taken before the Financial Commissioner, respondent 1, who arbitrarily ignored it while passing his impugned order (copy Annexure 'C' to the writ petition).
(2.) The question involved in ground (a) was referred to a Full Bench, because conflicting views had been expressed in some cases decided by this Court on this point. The Full Bench in The Kanianwali Co-operative Farming Society at Kanianwali V. The State of Punjab, 1969 PunLJ 258, has held - "(i) that the retrospective amendment of Section 19-B of the Act with effect from July 30, 1958, makes the provisions of that section subject to Section 10-A of the Act, right from the first day when Section 19-B was enacted; (ii) that at no time was Section 19-B independent of and not subject to the provisions of Section 10-A; (iii) that the expression "this Act" in Section 19-B (unamended as well as amended) has reference to the principal Act of 1953, and not to any subsequent amending legislation. xx xx xx xx xx xx (vii) that the making of the amendment to Section 19-B retrospective with effect from July 30, 1958, only, has no effect on the material question, and that any land which is once included in the surplus area of big landowner never ceases to be surplus and is never taken out of the pale of the area which is liable to be utilised under Section 10-A(a) except in the cases of acquisition by the State or acquisition by inheritance referred to in the Act; and (viii) that the purpose of enacting Section 19-B was to take over the surplus area of those who became big landowners after April 15, 1953, by acquiring more lands from other landowners (otherwise than by inheritance subject to Section 10-B) and not to reduce the surplus area of those who were big landowners on April 15, 1953."
(3.) The main point urged in grounds (a) and (b), above (numbered as grounds (b), (c) and (d) in paragraph 11 of this writ petition), is concluded by the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench. The only question that survives for decision is, whether the Commissioner was competent to treat the time-barred appeal of Karnail Singh, Respondent 3, as a revision petition.;