- (1.) Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1680, 1786 and 2335 of 1971 will be disposed of by this judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved.
(2.) In order to appreciate the real controversy between the parties, facts from Civil Writ Petition No. 1680 of 1971 are given below :- Proceedings for declaration of the surplus area of the petitioner were completed by the Collector (Agrarian Reforms), Jagadhri and vide his order dated 18.7.1960, he declared certain areas of the petitioner as surplus. The Naib Tehsildar Agrarian made a report on 13.12.1963 to the Collector (Agrarian Reforms), Jagadhri, that the surplus area case of the petitioner had not been correctly decided because at the material date, i.e. 15.4.1953, there were no tenants on the land of the petitioner. The Collector agreed to that report and made a reference to the Commissioner for permission to review the order passed by his predecessor on 18.7.1960. In due course, the Commissioner granted the permission to the Collector to review the earlier order. The matter came before Shri M.D. Asthana, Collector (Agrarian Reforms), Jagadhri, who after thorough examination of the case came to the conclusion that there were no tenants under the landowner on 15.4.1953. He, therefore, decided his surplus area case afresh and declared more land to be surplus in the hands of the petitioner, vide his order dated 13.11.1967. Private respondent Nos. 5 to 12 to this petition are tenants under different landowners. They filed applications in form 'Q' prescribed by the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purchase of lands comprised in their respective tenancies. The landowners contested the applications and put in their objections. A copy of the objections dated 11.9.1969 filed by Balbir Singh, one of those landowners, has been appended as Annexure 'D' to this petition. In these objections it is stated :- "The land in dispute is reserved. The matter regarding reservation is still under consideration. It has not yet been decided. The proceedings in this case may be stayed till the decision (of that case ?)." However, it was argued by the landowners that their area which was sought to be purchased was included within their reserved area. The tenants made enquiries and came to know that the surplus area cases of the landowners had been decided by the Collector (Agrarian Reforms) without impleading the tenants as parties and without hearing them and his order would be to the prejudice of the tenants. So they filed appeals on 24.2.1970 before the Commissioner against the orders of the Collector (Agrarian Reforms) contesting the surplus area cases of the landowners. These appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner, vide his order dated 22.4.1970 holding that the appellants were barred by limitation. Dissatisfied with these orders of the Commissioner, who, vide his order dated 18.1.1971 accepted the revisions and set aside the orders of the Commissioner and the Collector deciding the surplus area cases of the landowners and remanded the cases for fresh decision. Dissatisfied with these orders, the landowners have filed these three present petitions.
(3.) Mr. S.K. Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has strenuously argued that the order of the Financial Commissioner is completely illegal and manifestly unjust. He has set aside the well considered judgments of the Commissioner who had dismissed the appeals filed by the tenants as barred by time. The learned counsel has contended that the Commissioner has exercised the jurisdiction vested in him correctly and legally. It is also argued that the tenants had not filed applications for condonation of delay for filing the appeals. It was also contended that the joint appeals filed by the tenants were not competent. There is no dispute on the fact that the tenants were not heard when the surplus area cases of the petitioners were decided. Mr. Goyal has brought to my notice the form 'Q' prescribed by the Rules. It prescribes that a tenant has to make a declaration that the land is not included in the reserved or permissible area of the landowner. The learned counsel, from this, wants me to deduce that the tenants were fully aware of the position of the land and must be presumed to know that the land sought to be purchased had been reserved because by order of the Collector (Agrarian Reforms) other lands had been declared surplus and the lands in dispute have been allowed to be reserved. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel. As noticed earlier, they were asserting before the Assistant Collector even in the year 1969 that the lands of the petitioner-landowners have not been reserved and that the matter was pending consideration. In fact, they had made a prayer in their reply that the purchase proceedings be kept pending till the decision regarding reservation. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the tenants knew about the reservation by the petitioners. This fact also lends credence to the theory of tenants that in fact they came to know about the reservation in the beginning of January, 1970. Mr. Goyal has contended that if, for the sake of argument, it be taken that the tenants came to know about the orders of reservations in the beginning of January, 1970, even then they have to explain delay of each day from the date of knowledge and, according to him, this has not been done. I am afraid, I cannot agree to this suggestion also. The tenants were not a party, so the limitation against them will not start from the date of the orders. It will start from the date of knowledge. They could file the appeal within 60 days from the date of knowledge as provided by Section 18 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, which provision has been made applicable to the proceedings under the Act by Section 24 of the Act. Mr. Goyal has not been able to cite any precedent to show that an appeal filed within 60 days from the date of knowledge will be barred by limitation.;