SURJA versus HARDEVA AND ORS.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 448 · Decided: 17-10-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SURJA 
v. 
HARDEVA AND ORS. 
October 17, 1968 
[S. M. SIKRI AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
Punjob Security of Larrd Tenures Act (Punj. 10 of 1953) 
rs. 
18 
and 24-Land sought to be purchased by 
tenant-Land reserved 
or 
selected-Whether a question of jurisdiction-Revisional powers of Finan~ 
cial Commissioner. 
A 
B 
The appellant a tenant of the respondent (a big land-owner) applied 
C 
for purchase of the land cultivated by him under s. 18 of the Punjab 
Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 alleging that he had been in pos-
session of the land for more than six years and the land was outside 
the reserved area of the land-owner. 
The respondent alleged that the 
land was reserved. 
The Assistant Collector 
held that the 
appellant 
was entitled to purchase the land. 
The respondent filed an appeal to 
the Collector. 
The Collector 
dhmissed the appeal. 
The 
respondent 
then filed a revision to the Commissioner. 
While the revision was pend-
D 
ing the Financial Commissioner gave a decision in another matter that 
a selection by land-owner under s. 5B(l) for permissible area under the 
Act had the same force as reservation under s. 5 of the Act. 
The res-
pondent thereupon filed an application stating that the entire land 
in 
dispute was included in. the permissible area selected by him 
under 
s. 5-B 
and as this disentitled the tenant from purchasing the land he 
prayed that he may be allowed to raise this plea which involved a ques-
E 
tion of jurisdiction. The Commissioner satisfied himself that the selec-
tion document was filed within time and felt that the Jan.d could not be 
purchased and submitted the case to the Financial Commissionet with 
the recommendation that the revision be acceoted. The Financial Com-
missioner however dismissed the revfrdon hoJding that as the resoondent 
had not put the olea of selection before Assist'ant Collector or Collector 
he could not be allowed to do so at that stage. The resoondent fi'ed a writ 
petition in the High Court and the High Court allowed the oetition hold-
F 
ing that the Financial Commission.er should have accepted the recom-
mendation made by the Commissioner. 
In appeal this Court, 
HELD : The Financial 
Commissioner should have 
gone into 
the 
question whether Cnmmissioner's report was acceptable 9r not on. merits. 
The question whether the land sought to be purchased by the aooel-
lant was part of the reserved or selected area was a iurisdictional fact. 
Under s. 18 of the Act a tenant is only entitled to purchase land which 
is not included in the reserved or selected 
area 
of the 
land~owner. 
Unde,r s. 18(2) the Assistant Collector is only authorised to determine 
the value of the land after making such enquiries as he thinks fit. 
He 
is not authorised expressly to go into the question whether the 
land 
souoht to be purchased is included in the reserved or selected area of 
the ·'land-owner or not. 
But he should go into these 
q~e_stions before 
e!llbarking or determinin~ the price and by wrongly deciding that ques-
G 
H 
' 
~. 
' 
• 
~-
' 
• 
A 
B 
c 
SURJA V. HARDEVA (Sikri, J.) 
tion he cannot finally confer on himself jurisdiction to deal with the 
matter. The revisional power of the Financial Commissioner 
under 
s. 24 of the Act read with s. 84 of the Tenancy Act being the same as 
that of the High Court in exercise of that power the Financial Com-
missioner had jurisdiction to go into the question whether the Assistant 
Collector or the Collector had rightly assumed jurisdiction. [453 E-G] 
P,.s the question whether the selection by the land-owner was made 
in time and whether it was genuine and valid had to be decided 
the 
matter must be remanded to the Financial Commissioner for 
decision 
on these points. 
Chaube Jagdish Prasad v. Chaturvedi, [1959] Supp. I S.C.R. 733, 
746 and Jagannath Ramchandra Datar v. Dattaraya Balwant Hingmire, 
C.A. No. 585 of 1964 dated 9-9-1966, followed. 
Rai Brlj Raj Krishna v. S. K. Shaw [1951] S.C.R. 145, 
Queen 
v. 
Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income tcx, 21 Q.B.D. 313 and 
Colonial Bank of Australia v. Willan L.R. 5 P.C. 417, held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JurusmcnoN : Civil Appeal No. 778 of 
1966. 
D 
Appeal by special leave from the order, dated May 25, 1965 
of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 146 of 
1965. 
S. V. Gupte and Naunit Lal, for the appellant. 
A. K. Sen, S. C. Mohatta and A· D. Mathur, for respondent 
E 
No. 1. 
V. C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.