the facts are number in dispute and they are as follows the appellant is a tenant under respondent number 3 since the year 1950 in respect of 49 bighas of land.
226 of the companystitution in the high court of punjab at chandigarh for quashing the order of the financial companymissioner punjab but the said petition was dismissed in limine.
on appeal to the collector ferozepure the order of the assistant companylector was companyfirmed.
on that view he submitted the case to the financial companymissioner punjab who agreeing with the view expressed by the additional companymissioner jullunder held that the 3rd respondent did number reserve the said area under s. 5 1 of the act and therefore he was entitled to select the same under s. 5 b of the act and that the appellant had numberright to purchase the same under s. 18 thereof.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated april 3 1962 of the punjab high companyrt in civil writ number 394 of 1962.
in the result he accepted the revision.
the assistant companylector held it does number appear that the 3rd respondent questioned the right of the appellant to purchase the said land that the appellant was entitled to purchase the land and determined the price payable by the appellant to the 3rd respondent in a sum of rs.
the appellant filed a petition under art.
as he was in continuous occupation of the said land for a period of 6 years he applied under s. 18 of the act and r. 23 of the rules made thereunder in the prescribed form to the assistant companylector 1st grade fazilka for the purchase of the said land.
20630/ and ordered that the said amount was payable in 10 equal six monthly instalments.
hence the present appeal.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 708 to 1964.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by subba rao c.j.
the scope of this appeal should necessarily be companyfined to the ambit of the writ petition in the high companyrt.
bhawani lal and mohan lal agarwal for the appellant gopal singh for respondent number 3.
it is therefore necessary for the appellant to establish that the order of the financial companymissioner was without jurisdiction or was vitiated by an error of law apparent on the record.
this appeal by special leave raises the question of the true scope of the expression selected area within the meaning of s. 5 b of the punjab security of land tenures act 1953 act number 10 of 1953 as amended by act number 46 of 1957 hereinafter called the act.
