1, went up in appeal against the said order of the Collector to the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, who vide his order dated July 20, 1965 allowed the appeal, set aside the aforesaid order of the Collector and remanded the case for fresh determination of the Surplus Area.
After re examination of the case on remand, the Collector, Ferozepore, vide his order dated December 20, 1965, overruled the plea raised by appellants Nos.
Rajinder Singh and Jarnail Singh, appellants Nos.
The Collector also overruled the plea raised by appellant No.
1 that there was some banjar land which had to be excluded while reckoning the permissible area.
Aggrieved by these orders, the appellants took the matter in revision to the Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab, who also by his order dated March 3, 1967, affirmed the aforesaid orders of the Collector, Ferozepore, and Commissioner, Jullundur Division.
From the order dated 1st May, 1967 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Civil Writ No.
1 before the companymencement of the Act should be treated Tenants Permissible Area and excluded from the surplus pool and held that the entries in khasra girdawaries on which the claim of the said appellants was grounded companyld number be relied upon as they had been tampered with.
2 and 3, as tenants of appellant No.
Elaborating by his submission, the learned companynsel has urged that the orders passed by the revenue authorities companyld number be sustained as they did number, while companyputing the Surplus Area, leave out the permissible area which even according to the khasra girdawaries and Roznamcha Waqaiti which is maintained for the purpose of recording changes in cultivation was being cultivated by appellants Nos.
The Collector further held that even taking the entries at their face value, appellants Nos.
1 since 1951 52 that 30 bighas of land which was recorded as banjar at the time of the companymencement of the Act and did number fall within the definition of land as companytained in section 2 8 of the Act had number been taken into account while evaluating and assessing the Surplus Area, and that appellants Nos.
2 and 3 companyld number be treated tenants as companytemplated by the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 Act XVI of 1887 as they were number paying any rent to appellant No.
Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Hardayal Hardy has companytended that the writ petition filed by the appellants companyld number, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be dismissed in limine by the High Court.
Dissatisfied with this order, the appellants preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, who by his order dated November 7, 1966 dismissed the same and upheld the aforesaid order of the Collector, Ferozepore.
All these orders were challenged by the appellants before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by means of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but the same, as already stated, was dismissed in limine.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Hardyal Hardy, Naunit Lal and Miss Lalita Kohli, for the appellants.
296, 297, 517, 519, 285, 293 and 206 which was in their cultivating possession as tenants under appellant No.
By his order dated July 5, 1959, the then Collector, Ferozepore, acting under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act declared an area of 63 standard acres and 1 1/4 units out of the aforesaid land aggregating 93 standard acres and 1 1/4 units as surplus in the hands of Natha Singh.
2 and 3 that the area companyprised in khasra Nos.
707 of 1967.
P. Sharma and P. N. Puri, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by certificate under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution of India granted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is directed against its order dated May 1, 1967, dismissing in limine the writ petition filed by the appellants herein.
1308 of 1968.
2 and 3 herein, who are the sons of appellant No.
1 herein, was recorded in revenue records as land owner in respect of 39 standard acres and 9 3/4 units of land in village Malout, 53 standard acres and 5 1/2 units in village Kanamgarh and 4 standard acres and 2 units in village Bhagwanpur.
2 and 3 were number afforded proper and adequate opportunity by the Collector to prove the claim put forth by them.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are Natha Singh, appellant No.
