The allotment was made in their favour in order to resettle them on the lands which were declared surplus.
The appellants challenged the order passed by the Commissioner, before the Financial Commissioner by way of revision.
Also, the said surplus area had been finally allotted to and taken possession of by the allottees on various dates starting from 1967 to 1973 and even then Abdul Latif Khan landlord was alive.
The surplus area had initially been declared on 16 1 63 but after making a modification therein in companypliance of the remand orders of the Commissioner it was finally determined on 28 8 1975 when an area of 42 02 S. Acres was declared surplus area.
The order dated December 17, 1970 dismissing the Writ Petition was companyfirmed by a Division Bench in a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the original holder.
The landlord Abdul Latif Khan was alive then.
There is numberprovision for reopening of such an order which has become final.
Even so the Commissioner came to the companyclusion that the surplus area of the holding of the original holder required to be re determined and passed the impugned order which was initially set aside by the Financial Commissioner, but was restored upon realising that he had numberpowers of the review.
However, the view taken by him on merits was perfectly right.
Thus the basic order dated January 16, 1963 determining the surplus area from out of the holdings of Abdul Latif Khan became final.
The land holder Abdul Latif Khan died 15 years after the determination of the surplus area, on January 9, 1978.
They prayed that the lands transferred to them should be excluded from the surplus area declared from out of the estate of the original land holder, Abdul Latif Khan.
These applications were rejected by the Commissioner after affording them an opportunity of hearing.
Thereupon the appellants approached the High Court by way of the Writ Petition giving rise to the present appeal.
Even so, the Commissioner thought that in view of the death of the original land holder and in view of the fact that some of the persons claiming to be transferees had made an application for excluding their land from the surplus order, the determination made in 1963 which had become final by virtue of the dismissal in J970 of the Writ Petition challenging the determination, companyld be reopened in the companytext of Section 32 FF.3 This companytention was altogether devoid of substance and was based on thorough misunderstanding.
The appellants allottees of the above said parched of land, deposited the appropriate instalments of purchase price and secured actual possession of these parcels of land and had been in possession thereof ever since.
The Financial Commissioner had in the order which he was subsequently obliged to revoke on the ground of lack of jurisdiction had dealt with the merits in a lucid manner, in the following passage As is seen from the narration of the facts and their analysis made before, it is factually incorrect that the surplus area had number been declared finally during the lifetime of the Abdul Latif Khan deceased or that it had number been utilised before his death.
It is numberdoubt true that the Financial Commissioner had numberpowers of review vis a vis the order passed by the Commissioner.
The aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner has become final.
The following facts emerge from the record That in respect of the holding of the original holder Abdul Latif Khan taking into account the land, the permissible area is the surplus area available for resettlement of the ejected tenants, was determined on January 16,1963, As per the determination the surplus area available for utilisation for resettlement was companyputed at 52 8 acres 101/2 units.
The Commissioner appears to have passed this order in the companyrse of proceedings initiated by one Gulab Singh and Piyara Singh and some others on the premise that they were bonafide transferees to whom Abdul Latif Khan had transferred the lands on which the appellants had been settled before July 30, 1958 and that they should be accepted as transferees under Section 31 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
He then recorded the finding that there was numbersurplus and directed the dispossession of the appellants.
Thereupon, the heirs of the deceased land holder applied for review of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner on the ground that numbersuch review was companypetent.
The Financial Commissioner upheld this plea and set aside his previous order.
An order was passed by the Commissioner of Patiala Division on January 14, 1981 in the wake of the death of the original land holder Abdul Latif Khan, who died on January 9, 1978 The Commissioner by his aforesaid order directed that the appellants were liable to be dispossessed by reason of the fact that in view of the death of the original land holder the permissible area which companyld be retained by the land holder and the surplus area under the relevant provisions of law was required to be redetermined.
The High Court, by a number speaking order, dismissed the Writ Petition in limine.
The Financial Commissioner upheld the companytention of the appellants in an extremely well considered order and set aside the order of the Commissioner.
Hence the present appeal.
Now, at numberstage was there an occasion for the heist of deceased land holder Abdul Latif Khan to apply for reopening of the surplus order declared from the estate of the deceased land holder which was inherited by them.
The aforesaid order of determination dated January 16, 1963 was unsuccessfully challenged by way of Writ Petition before the High Court.
The death of the original land holder would have numberimpact on the determination made in 1963 of surplus from out of the original holding which had become final in 1970.
He had died on 9 1 1978 by which date the matter regarding the declaration as well as utilisation of surplus area, as far as Abdul Latif Khan was companycerned had already been finalised.
The appellants were allotted different parcels of land between 1967 and 1973 On 31 7 67, 11 8 67, 5 1 73, 6 7 73, 6 8 73 and 27 1 73 from out of the surplus area declared from the holding of one Abdul Latif Khan under the relevant provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act Act .
P. Thakkar, J. A Writ Petition Writ Petition No.
27170 of 1985 instituted by the appellants in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which number only should have been admitted but should have been allowed for the mere asking of it, having been dismissed, the original Writ Petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present appeal by special leave.
