P.C. Jain, J. - (1.) THIS order of mine will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 1411, 1650 and 1650 of 1965, as similar questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions
(2.) VIR Singh has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the orders of the Collector, the Additional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, dated 14th September, 1962, 6th Dece - mber, 1963, and 28th April, 1965 (Annexures 'A', 'B' and 'C') respective - ly. The relevant facts with which we are concerned, are that the Collector, Respondent No. 4, declared an area measuring 30.31 Ordinary Acres equal to 9.45 Standard Acres of the Petitioner's land as surplus, allowing him to retain 60 Ordinary Acres. The form 'F' was served on the Petitioner on 5th January, 1963. Thereafter on 7th January, 1963. the Petitioner applied for the copy of the order of the Collector which was ready for delivery on 19th January, 1963. After the receipt of the copy, the Petitioner filed an appeal on 21st February, 1963, before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. The appeal was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Ambala Division, on 6th December, 1963 holding it to be time -barred. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Additional Commissioner, a revision was preferred by the Petitioner under Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), read with Section 81 of the Punjab Ten - ancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). The Financial Commissioner upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner and held that the appeal before the Additional Commissioner was time -barred. On merits too no ground was found by the learned Financial Commissioner Civil Writ No. 1411 of 1965 for interference. Accordingly the revision was rejected on 28th April, 1965(sic) (copy Annexure 'C' to the petition). It is these orders of the app -lopnate(sic) authorities, the legality of which has been challenged by the Petitioner on the grounds stated in the petition.
(3.) IN the return filed by Shri Adhiapak Singh, Under Secretary to Government, Haryana, Revenue Department, on behalf of Respondents, the material allegations made in the petition have been contro -verteo and it has been asserted that the impugned orders are perfectly legal and within jurisdiction.;