the respondent produced no evidence with regard to having this land got reserved though they are big land owners.
on february 1 1961.
the companylector by his order dated july 20 1960 dismissed the appeal.
appeal by special leave from the order dated may 25 1965 of the punjab high companyrt in letters patent appeal number 146 of 1965.
in the grounds of revision dated october 27 1960 various grounds were taken but there was numberground regarding reservation of land or selection of land under s. 5 b of the act.
hardeva then filed a revision before the companymissioner.
held that selection under s. 5 b 1 had the same force as.
surja the appellant was an old tenant of hardeva and had been cultivating the land in dispute since about 1949.
regarding reservation he observed it is admitted by the respondent that they are big land owners and got this land reserved but later on during his very cross examination he denied any knumberledge about the reservation.
it was companymon ground before him that hardeva was a big landowner and that surja had been in continuous possession of the land in dispute for more than six years and the only point he determined was whether with the addition of the 28 bighas and 12 biswas of land which surja had been permitted to purchase his total area would exceed the permissible area or number.
reservation under s. 5 of the act and this disentitled.
by his order dated march 31 1959 the assistant collector sirsa held that surja was entitled to purchase the land in dispute and accordingly fixed the price.
in this application he stated that the entire land in dis pute was included in the permissible area selected by him under s. 5 b of the act by submitting form e. he further stated that the financial companymissioner had in karan singh v. angraz singh 1 .
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sikri j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the high companyrt of punjab in letters.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 778 of 1966.
surja from purchasing the land in dispute.
hardeva thereupon filed an appeal before the companylector and one of the grounds taken was that the assistant companylector erred in holding that the land in dispute was number reserved land.
c. mahajan and r.n.
v. gupte and naunit lal for the appellant.
sachthey for respondent number.
patent appeal number 146 of 1965 whereby the high court dismissed in limine the letters patent appeal filed by the appellant surja against the judgment of the learned single judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent hardeva.
on this point he held in favour of surja and accordingly dismissed the appeal .
mathur for respondent number1.
k. sen s.c.
2 3 and 4.
hardeva filed an application in the companyrt of the companymissioner.
