{"id":12770,"date":"1968-10-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-10-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968"},"modified":"2015-10-28T09:22:47","modified_gmt":"2015-10-28T03:52:47","slug":"surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968","title":{"rendered":"Surja vs Hardeva And Ors on 17 October, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Surja vs Hardeva And Ors on 17 October, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1193, \t\t 1969 SCR (2) 448<\/div>\n
Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSURJA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHARDEVA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n17\/10\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR 1193\t\t  1969 SCR  (2) 448\n\n\nACT:\nPunjab\tSecurity  of Land Tenures Act (Punj.  10  of   1953)\nss.1   and 24--Land sought to be purchased by\ttenant--Land\nreserved  of selected--Whether a question  of  jurisdiction-\nRevisional powers of Financial Commissioner.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant\ta tenant of. the respondent l(a\t big,  land-\nowner). applied. for purchase of the.land cultivated by\t him\nunder s. 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953\nalleging that he had been in possession of the land for more\nthan.  six years and the land was outside the reserved\tarea\nof the-land-oWner.  The respondent alleged. that th land was\nreserved. The Assistant Collector .held that the   appellant\nwas  entitled. to purchase the land'.  The respondent  filed\nan  appeal  t the Collector.  The Collector   dismissed\t the\nappeal.\t  The  responder  then\tfiled  a  revision  to\t the\nCommissioner.  While the revision was pending the  Financial\nCommissioner  gave  a  decision in another  matter  that   a\nselection by land-owner under s2 5B(1) for permissible\tarea\nunder the Act had the same force as.'reservation.under s. 5,\nof the Act.  There respondent thereupon filed an-application\nstating\t that the entire land  dispute was included  in\t the\npermissible area selected by him  under s. 5-B\tand as\tthis\ndisentitled the tenant from purchasing the land prayed\tthat\nhe  may\t be  allowed to raise this  plea  which\t involved  a\nquestion   of  jurisdiction.   The  Commissioner   satisfied\nhimself\t that the selection document was filed\twithin\ttime\nand  felt that the land could not  purchased  and  submitted\nthe   case   to\t the  Financial\t  Commissioner\t with\t the\nrecommendation\t that  the.  revision  be   accepted.\t The\nFinancial   Commissioner  however  dismissed  the   revision\nholding\t that  as  the respondent had not put  the  plea  of\nselection before Assistant Collector or Collect he could not\nbe  allowed to do so at that stage. The respondent  filed  a\npetition  in the High Court and the High Court\tallowed\t the\npetitioning  that  the Financial  Commissioner\tshould\thave\naccepted the recommendation made by the Commissioner.\nIn appeal this Court,\n     HELD:  The\t Financial  Commissioner should\t have\tgone\ninto  question whether Commissioner's report was  acceptable\nor not on merits\n     The question whether the land sought to be purchased by\nthe appellant was part of the reserved or selected area\t was\na  jurisdictional f Under s. 18 of the Act a tenant is\tonly\nentitled  to purchase land  is not included in the  reserved\nor  selected   area   of  the  land-ow Under  s.  18(2)\t the\nAssistant  Collector  is only authorized  to  determine\t the\nvalue .of the land after making such enquiries as he  thinks\nfit.  is  not authorized expressly to go into  the  question\nwhether\t the  sought  to be purchased  is  included  in\t the\nreserved  or  selected are the land-owner or  not.   But  he\nshould go into these  questions\t be embarking or determining\nthe price and by wrongly deciding. that.\n449\ntion  he  cannot finally confer on himself  jurisdiction  to\ndeal with the matter.  The revisional power of the Financial\nCommissioner   under s. 24 of the Act read with s. 84 of the\nTenancy\t Act  being the same as that of the  High  Court  in\nexercise  of  that  power  the\tFinancial  Commissioner\t had\njurisdiction  to go into the question whether the  Assistant\nCollector or the Collector had rightly assumed jurisdiction.\n[453 E--G]\n    As the question whether the selection by the  land-owner\nwas made in time and whether it was genuine and valid had to\nbe  decided   the matter must be remanded to  the  Financial\nCommissioner  for  decision on these points.\n    Chaube  Jagdish  Prasad v. Chaturvedi,<\/a>  [1959]  Supp.  1\nS.C.R. 733, 746 and Jagannath Ramchandra Datar v.  Dattaraya\nBalwant\t Hingmire,  C.A.  No. 585 of  1964  dated  9-9-1966,\nfollowed.\n    Rai\t Brij  Raj Krishna v.S.K. Shaw\t[1951]\tS.C.R.\t145,\nQueen  v. Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income\ttax,\n21 Q.B.D. 313 and Colonial Bank of Australia v. Willan\tL.R.\n5 P.C. 417, held inapplicable.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  778  of
\n1966.\n<\/p>\n
    Appeal  by special leave from the order, dated  May\t 25,
\n1965  of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal\t No.
\n146 of 1965.\n<\/p>\n
    S.V. Gupte and Naunit Lal, for the appellant.
\n    A.K.  Sen, S.C. Mohatta and A.D. Mathur, for  respondent
\nNo 1.\n<\/p>\n
    V. C. Mahajan and R.N. Sachthey, for respondent Nos.  2,
\n3 and 4.\n<\/p>\n
    The Judgment of the ‘Court was delivered by
\n    Sikri,  J.\tThis  appeal by special\t leave\tis  directed
\nagainst\t the judgment and order of the High Court of  Punjab
\nin  Letters. Patent Appeal No. 146 of 1965 whereby the\tHigh
\nCourt dismissed in limine the Letters Patent Appeal filed by
\nthe   appellant\t Surja against the judgment of\tthe  learned
\nSingle\tJudge  allowing\t the  writ  petition  filed  by\t the
\nrespondent, Hardeva.   .\n<\/p>\n
    The\t relevant  facts for determining the  points  raised
\nbefore us are as follows; Hardeva, respondent before us,  is
\na big landlord of village Panniwala Mota in Sirsa Tahsil  of
\nHissar\tDistrict. Surja, the appellant, was an old tenant of
\nHardeva\t and had been cultivating the land in dispute  since
\nabout  1949.  Section  18 of the  Punjab  Security  of\tLand
\nTenures Act, 1953 (Punj..Act X of 1953)-hereinafter referred
\nto as the Act–entitles a tenant of a land-owner other\tthan
\na small land-owner to purchase from the land-owner .the land
\nheld  by him, but not included in the reserved area  of\t the
\nland-owner if he satisfies the conditions laid down in\tthat
\nsection. Section 18(1) & (2) may be set out.\n<\/p>\n
450<\/span><\/p>\n
     “18(1)   Notwithstanding  anything\t to   the   contrary
\n‘contained in any law, usage or contract, a tenant of a
\nland-owner other than a small land-owner-\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  who has been in continuous occupation of the\tland
\ncomprised in his tenancy for a minimum period of six  years,
\nor\n<\/p>\n
     (ii)  who\thas been restored to his tenancy  under\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthis  Act and whose  periods  of  continuous
\noccupation of the laud comprised in his tenancy\t immediately
\nbefore\tejectment and immediately after restoration  of\t his
\ntenancy together amounts to six years or more, or\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)  who was ejected from his tenancy after the\t14th
\nday of August 1947, and before the commencement of this Act,
\nand  who was in continuous occupation of the land  comprised
\nin  his\t tenancy  for  a  period  of  six  years  or   ,more
\nimmediately  before  his  ejectment, shall  be\tentitled  to
\npurchase from the land-owner the land so held by him but not
\nincluded in the reserved area of the land-owner, in the case
\nof a tenant falling within clause (i) or clause (ii) at\t any
\ntime,  and  in the case of a tenant  falling  within  clause\n<\/p>\n
(iii)’\twithin\ta  period  of one  year\t from  the  date  of
\ncommencement of this Act;\n<\/p>\n
     Provided\tthat   no  tenant  referred  to\t  in\tthis
\nsubsection  shall be entitled to exercise any such fight  in
\nrespect of the land or any portion thereof if he had  sublet
\nthe  land or the portion, as the case may be, to  any  other
\nperson\tduring\tany  period of\this  continuous\t occupation,
\nunless\tduring that period the tenant was suffering  from  a
\nlegal disability or physical infirmity, or, if a woman,\t was
\na widow or was unmarried;\n<\/p>\n
     Provided  further\tthat  if the land.  intended  to  be
\npurchased  is  held  by another tenant who  is\tentitled  to
\npreempt\t the sale under the next preceding section, and\t who
\nis  not\t ‘accepted by the purchasing tenant, the  tenant  in
\nactual occupation shall have the right to pre-empt the sale.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)  A  tenant desirous of purchasing land\t under\tsub-
\nsection\t (1)  shall  make an application  in  writing  w  an
\nAssistant  Collector of the First Grade having\tjurisdiction
\nover the land concerned, and the-Assistant Collector,  after
\ngiving\tnotice\tto the land-over and to\t all  other  persons
\ninterested  in the land and after making such inquiry as  he
\nthinks fit, shall. determine the value of
\n451<\/span>
\n\t      the  land\t which shall be the average  of\t the
\n\t      prices  obtaining\t for  similar  land  in\t the
\n\t      locality during 10 years immediately preceding
\n\t      the date on which the application is made.”
\n    Surja  accordingly\tapplied on August 5,  1957,  to\t the
\nCollect\t or,Hissar  District, stating that  he\tintended  to
\npurchase the land in   dispute and that the land is  outside
\nthe reserved area of the landowner. He further alleged\tthat
\nhe  had\t been in possession of the land for the\t last  eight
\nyears. Hardeva in his written statement, inter alia,  stated
\nthat  Surja was in possession of the land only for three  or
\nfour years. He alleged that Surja had already 150 bighas  of
\ncultivable  land.   He\tfurther\t stated\t that  the  land  is
\nreserved  and  for  that reason Surja was  not\tentitled  to
\npurchase it. In his evidence before the Assistant  Collector
\ngiven on March 25, 1958, Hardeva deposed:
\n  “The\tland is reserved. I do not know whether the land  in
\ndispute is reserved or not.”,
\n   By  his  order,  dated  March  31,  1959,  the  Assistant
\nCollector,  Sirsa, held that Surja was entitled to  purchase
\nthe  land  in dispute, and, accordingly,  fixed\t the  price.
\nRegarding  reservation\the observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  is admitted by the respondent  that\tthey
\n\t      are   big\t land-owners  and  got\t this\tland
\n\t      reserved, but later on  during his very cross-
\n\t      examination, he denied any knowledge about the
\n\t      reservation.    The  respondent  produced\t  no
\n\t      evidence\twith regard to having this land\t got
\n\t      reserved though they are big land-owners.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Hardeva thereupon filed an appeal before the Collector,\t and
\none  of the grounds taken was that the\tAssistant  Collector
\nerred  in holding that the land in dispute was not  reserved
\nland.\tThe  Collector, by his order, dated July  20,  1960,
\ndismissed  the appeal. It was common ground before him\tthat
\nHardeva\t was  a\t big landowner and that Surja  had  been  in
\ncontinuous  possession of the land in dispute for more\tthan
\nsix years, and the only point he determined was whether with
\nthe  addition of the 28 bighas and 12 biswas of\t land  which
\nSurja  had been permitted to purchase his total\t area  would
\nexceed the permissible area or not. On this point he held in
\nfavour of Surja and accordingly dismissed the appeal, .
\n    Hardeva  then filed a revision before the  Commissioner.
\nIn  the grounds of revision dated October 27, 1960,  various
\ngrounds\t were  taken  but  there  was  no  ground  regarding
\nreservation of land or selection of land under s. 5-B of the
\nAct.   On February 1, 1961. Hardeva filed an application  in
\nthe  Court  of\tthe Commissioner.  In  this  application  he
\nstated that the entire land in dis-\n<\/p>\n
452<\/span><\/p>\n
pute  was included in the permissible area selected  bY\t him
\nunder  s. 5-B of the Act by submitting form “E”. He  further
\nstated\tthat  the  Financial  Commissioner   had   in  Karan
\nSingh  v. Angraz Singh (1). held that selection under  s.  5\n<\/p>\n
-B(1)  had the same force as. reservation under s. 5 of\t the
\nAct, and this disentitled. Surja from purchasing the land in
\ndispute.  He prayed that he may be allowed to raise the plea
\nof  selection under s. 5-B (1). He stated, that\t tiffs\tplea
\ninvolved a question of jurisdiction and in the interest
\nof  justice  he may be permitted to raise this\tplea  as  an
\nadditional ground of revision.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Commissioner allowed the ground to be taken but  as
\nSurja’s\t counsel suspected the bona fides of the  selection,
\nthe Commissioner sent for the original file and he satisfied
\nhimself,  after\t examining  the original form  “E”  and\t the
\naffidavit  in relation to form’ “E”, that. Hardeva had\tduly
\nsubmitted  the\tselection document to the  Collector  within
\ntime  on  June\t19,  1958. It  appears\tthat  the  Financial
\nCommissioner had held in Dhanpat Raf v. State Punjab(2) that
\nthe  period  of\t six months allowed  by\t s..5-B\t for  making
\nselection  would start from March 22, .1958, the  date\twhen
\nthe Punjab Government Notification proscribing the form\t was
\nissued.\t The Commissioner felt that the selected land  could
\nnot be purchased under s. 18 by the tenant.  lie accordingly
\nsubmitted  the case to the Financial Commissioner  with\t the
\nrecommendation.\t that the revision petition be accepted\t and
\nthat   the  orders  of\tthe  Assistant\tCollector  and\t the
\nCollector be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Financial Commissioner dismissed ,the revision.  He
\nheld  that  as\tHardeva\t had not put  forward  the  plea  of
\nselection before the Assistant Collector or the Collector he
\ncould not be allowed to do so at that stage. lie observed:
\n   “In\tother  words the consideration that  reservation  of
\narea under section 5 and selection of area under section 5-B
\nare  identical\tin  their effect has  no  relevance  in\t the
\npresent.  cases\t for the reasons that it was  never  claimed
\n(except\t in  revision) that the .area  .had  .been  selected
\nunder  section\t5-B.   If such a claim\thad  been  made\t and
\nsubstantiated, the position would have been .different,\t but
\nsince  this.’  was  not\t done,\tthe  ‘decision\tagainst\t the
\npetitioner  cannot  be challenged.  it is  also\t clear\tthat
\nthere  is  no  question\t in  these  eases   of\t authorities
\nconcerned  having  acted  without  jurisdiction\t or   having
\nexercised.  it\twith illegality ‘or  material  .irregularity
\nwhich alone could justify interference ‘in revision.”
\n   Hardeva then filed a petition under Arts. 226 and 227. of
\nthe Constitution.  The Court held that the Financial Commis
\n(1) (1960) 39 Lahore Law Times, 57,  (2) (1961) Lahore\tLaw
\n453<\/span>
\nsioner should have accepted. the recommendation made by. the
\nCommissioner  and  accordingly\tallowed\t the  petition\t and
\ndeclared that Surja was not entitled to purchase the land in
\ndispute\t selected by the land-owner under the provisions  of
\n‘s. 5-B of the Act. The learned Single Judge was of the view
\nthat the disputed question related. to junsdiction and .went
\nto the root of the whole matter.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tappears\t that  there was some  dispute\tbefore\t the
\nlearned\t Single\t Judge\tabout the  date\t of  the  selection,
\nbecause the learned Judge observed:\n<\/p>\n
    “There  is a slight dispute on the question whether\t the
\nintimation of selection was given on 19th or’ 20th  of June,
\n1958”.\n<\/p>\n
He, however. preferred to accept the finding of the  learned
\nCommissioner  on  the  point and  gave\tthe  land.owner\t the
\nbenefit\t of it. He further observed that the question  could
\nnot have been raised before the Assistant Collector and\t the
\nCollector because “the prevailing view up till 1960  appears
\nto  have been that the selected area had. not  been  equated
\nwith  the  reserved area” and it was because  of  this\tthat
\nHardeva\t had not placed it before  the\tAssistant  Collector
\nand the Collector although he had placed the point that\t the
\narea was part of the reserved area.\n<\/p>\n
    It seems to us that the High Court was right in  holding
\nthat  the, question whether the land sought to be  purchased
\nby  Surja  was part of the reserved or selected area  was  a
\njurisdictional fact. Under s. 18 of the Act a tenant is only
\nentitled  to   purchase land which as not  included  in\t the
\nreserved or selected area of the landowner.  Under S.  18(2)
\nthe Assistant Collector is only authorized to determine\t the
\nvalue  of the land after making such enquiries as he  thinks
\nfit.  He is not authorized expressly to go into the question
\nwhether\t the land sought to be purchased is included in\t the
\nreserved or selected area of the land-owner  or\t not.\tBut,
\nobviously  it must be the intention that he should  go\tinto
\nthese  questions before embarking on determining the  price.
\nBut  by\t wrongly deciding that question\t he  cannot  finally
\nconfer on himself jurisdiction to deal with the matter.\t  In
\nexercise of the powers under s. 24 of the Act, read with  s.
\n84  of\tthe  Tenancy Act,  the\tFinancial  Commissioner\t had
\njurisdiction  to go into the question whether the  Assistant
\nCollector or the Collector had rightly assumed jurisdiction.
\n It  was  urged before us that the orders of  the  Assistant
\nCollector   and\t the Collector were final and could  not  be
\nassailed  on  the  ground  that\t they  had  wrongly  assumed
\njurisdiction.  Reliance was placed  on authorities. like Rai
\nBrij Raj Krishna v. S..K. Shaw<\/a>(1) where
\n(1) [1951] S.C.R. 145.\n<\/p>\n
454<\/span><\/p>\n
this  Court referred to Queen v. Commissioners\tfor  Special
\nPurposes   of Income Tax (1) and Colonial Bank of  Australia
\nv. Willan,(2) That was a case of a suit whereby the order of
\nthe Commissioner under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent\t and
\nEviction)  Control  Act,  1947\t(s. 11)\t was  sought  to  be
\ndeclared illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction,\t but
\nwe are concerned with the revisional power.of the  Financial
\nCommissioner  which is the same as that of the\tHigh  Court.
\nAs observed by Kapur, J., speaking for the Court, in  Chaube
\nJagdish\t Prasad\t v.  Chaturvedi,.<\/a>(3)  these  cases  have  no
\napplication   to  the  exercise\t of  revisional\t power.\t  He
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t “The  appellant also relied on Rai  BrijRai
\n\t      Krishna  v.S.K. Shaw and Bros.(4)\t where\tthis
\n\t      Court quoted with approval the observations of
\n\t      Lord Esher in Queen v. Commissioner for pecial
\n\t      Purposes\tof  the Income Tax(1)  and  Colonial
\n\t      Bank  of\tAustralia v.  Willan(a),  where\t Sir
\n\t      James Colville said:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t “Accordingly  the   authorities…establish
\n\t      that   an\t adjudication  by  a  Judge   having
\n\t      jurisdiction over the subject matter is, if no
\n\t      defect appears on the face of it, to be  taken
\n\t      as conclusive of the facts stated therein\t and
\n\t      that  the Court of Queen’s Bench will  not  on
\n\t      certiorari  quash such an adjudication on\t the
\n\t      ground   that   any   such   fact,    however,
\n\t      essential,  has  been  erroneously found.”
\n\t\t  But\tthese  observations  can   have\t  no
\n\t      application to the judgment of the  Additional
\n\t      Civil Judge whose jurisdiction in the  present
\n\t      case iS to be determined by the provisions  of
\n\t      s.  5  (4) of the Act.  And the power  of\t the
\n\t      High    Court   to   correct   questions\t  of
\n\t      jurisdiction  is to be found within  the\tfour
\n\t      corners  of s. 115. H there is an error  which
\n\t      falls within this section the High CoUrt\twill
\n\t      have the power to interfere, not otherwise.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t The  only  question to be  decided  in\t the
\n\t      instant case is as to whether ,the High  Court
\n\t      had  correctly interfered under s. 115 of\t the
\n\t      Code of Civil Procedure with the order of\t the
\n\t      Civil  Judge.  As we have held above,  at\t the
\n\t      instance\tof  the landlord the’suit  was\tonly
\n\t      maintainable if it was based on the inadequacy
\n\t      of  the  reasonable annual rent and  for\tthat
\n\t      purpose  the necessary jUrisdictional fact  to
\n\t      be  found was the date of the construction  of
\n\t      the  accommodation  and if the  court  wrongly
\n\t      decided
\n(1) 21 Q.B.D. M3.\t\t      (2) L.R. 5 P.C. 417.\n<\/p>\n
(3) [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 733, 746.   (4) [1951] S.C.R. 145.\n<\/p>\n
455<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      that  fact and thereby conferred\tjurisdiction
\n\t      upon  itself  which  it did  not\tpossess,  it
\n\t      exercised\t jurisdiction  not vested in it\t and
\n\t      the matter fell within the. rule laid down  by
\n\t      the  Privy  Council in Joy  Chandlal  Babu  v.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Kamalksha\t Chaudhury(1). ‘ The High Court\t had
\n\t      the  power  to interfere and once it  had\t the
\n\t      power it could determine whether the  question
\n\t      of-the  date of construction was\trightly\t ,or
\n\t      wrongly  decided.\t The High .Court  held\tthat
\n\t      the  Civil Judge had wrongly decided that\t the
\n\t      conStruction  was\t of a date  after  June\t 30,
\n\t      1946, and therfor fell within s. 3-A.”\n<\/p>\n
   Similarly,  in  Jagannath Ramchandra Datar  v.  Dattaraya
\nBalwant Hingmire(2) this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t “Therefore  if\t it can be  shown  that\t the
\n\t      subordinate   court   without   any   evidence
\n\t      whatsoever  held\tthat  the’  transaction\t  in
\n\t      question\twas  not a sale but a  mortgage\t and
\n\t      that the relationship between the parties\t was
\n\t      that  of a debtor and a creditor and on  that.
\n\t      footing proceeded to exercise its power  under
\n\t      section\t3   and\t  10   A   of\tthe   Dekhan
\n\t      Agriculturists Relief Act the High Court would
\n\t      be entitled to interfere with such a  decision
\n\t      under  both  the parts of s.  115.   It  would
\n\t      then’ be possible to say that the\t subordinate
\n\t      court  had clutched at jurisdiction  which  it
\n\t      had  not under the said section and  it  would
\n\t      also  be\tpossible  to  say  that\t court\t had
\n\t      exercised\t its jurisdiction illegally or\twith
\n\t      material irregularity.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It seems to us that the Financial Commissioner did\t not
\nappreciate  the content of his powers of revision  under  s.
\n24, read with s. 84 of the Tenancy Act. It was obvious\tfrom
\nthe  report of the Commissioner that if the finding  arrived
\nat by the Commissioner was accepted the Assistant  Collector
\nand the Collector had no jurisdiction in the matter.
\n    In\tour opinion the Financial Commissioner\tshould\thave
\ngone into the question whether the Commissioner’s report was
\nacceptable or not on merits.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t is urged by the learned counsel for Surja that\t the
\nHigh Court did not decide the question whether the selection
\nhad been properly made within time, but it merely,  accepted
\nthe  report  of\t the  Commissioner.   He,  therefore,  still
\ndisputes  the fact that the selection was made within  time.
\nHe  also says that it is not a genuine and valid  selection.
\nThese\tpoints\tshould\tbe  gone  into\tby   the   Financial
\nCommissioner.\tUnder  these  circumstances  we\t allow\t the
\nappeal, set aside the orders passed by the High Court
\n(1)  1949 L.R. 76 I.A. 131.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  Civil  Appeal No. 585 of  1964–judgment  delivered  on
\nSeptember 9, 1966.\n<\/p>\n
456<\/span><\/p>\n
and  the  Financial Commissioner and remit the case  to\t the
\nFinancial.  Commissioner  to dispose of the  revision  filed
\nbefore him in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
    There will be no order as to Costs in this appeal.’
\nY.P.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
458<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Surja vs Hardeva And Ors on 17 October, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1193, 1969 SCR (2) 448 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: SURJA Vs. RESPONDENT: HARDEVA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/10\/1968 BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BACHAWAT, R.S. CITATION: 1970 AIR 1193 1969 SCR (2) 448 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12770","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSurja vs Hardeva And Ors on 17 October, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Surja vs Hardeva And Ors on 17 October, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1968-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-28T03:52:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Surja vs Hardeva And Ors on 17 October, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-28T03:52:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968\"},\"wordCount\":2801,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968\",\"name\":\"Surja vs Hardeva And Ors on 17 October, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-28T03:52:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Surja vs Hardeva And Ors on 17 October, 1968\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Surja vs Hardeva And Ors on 17 October, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Surja vs Hardeva And Ors on 17 October, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-28T03:52:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Surja vs Hardeva And Ors on 17 October, 1968","datePublished":"1968-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-28T03:52:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968"},"wordCount":2801,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968","name":"Surja vs Hardeva And Ors on 17 October, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-28T03:52:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surja-vs-hardeva-and-ors-on-17-october-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Surja vs Hardeva And Ors on 17 October, 1968"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12770","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12770"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12770\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12770"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12770"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12770"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}