JUDGMENT S. S Sidhu, I A S.—The Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh vide their order dated 9-9-1992 passed in Civil Writ Petition No, 125 of 1992, have set aside the order dated 21-6-1991 passed by our learned predecessor in Ceiling Revision No. 291 of 1986, The case has been remanded to this Court for fresh decision after notice to the parties, in accordance with law. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that in ceiling case of Shri Narinder Singh, petitioner No. 1, the learned Sub-Divisional Collector, Theog vide his order dated 31-1-1973 declared an area of 282-(5 bighas as surplus under section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as the Act). The Collector, Shimla District, referred the order of the Sub-Divisional Collector, Theog to Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, for reviewing the same under section 20 (3) of the Act. In his letter No. 6225/SK/76, dated 6-12-1976, he stated that Shri Narinder Singh was entitled for one unit only i e. 161-5 bighas but the learned Collector, Theog Sub-Division, wrongly excluded the tenancy area from the total holding of this owner for the determination of surplus land, which is contrary to the provisions contained in the Act. My learned predecessor, Shri P. K. Mattoo, vide his order dated 8-12-1976 passed in Revision No 138 of 1976, set aside the order dated 31-1-1975 of the Sub Divisional Collector, Theog and remanded the case for fresh trial to the Collector, Theog Sub-Division The Collector. Theog Subdivision vide his order dated 21-3 1983 held the sale of 124-iO bighas of land in Chak Charain and 10-8 bighas of land in Chak Teekar, totalling 134-18 bighas of land as mala fide sales under section 7 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by this order dated 21-3-1983 of the Sub-Divisional Collector, Theog, Shri Narinder Singh and others filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Shimla Division, who dismissed the same vide his order dated 14-10-1986. 3 Feeling dis-satisfied with the order dated 14-10-4986 of the Commissioner, Shimla Division, Shri Narinder Singh and others filed revision petition in this Court and the same was dismissed by our learned predecessor, Shri P. T Wangdi, vide his order dated 21-6-1991. 3 Feeling dis-satisfied with the order dated 14-10-4986 of the Commissioner, Shimla Division, Shri Narinder Singh and others filed revision petition in this Court and the same was dismissed by our learned predecessor, Shri P. T Wangdi, vide his order dated 21-6-1991. He agreed with the learned Commissioner, Shimla Division that section 7 (2) of the Act attaches finality in such cases and the question of transfer of land as bona fide or otherwise once adjudicated upon by the Collector cannot be challenged in appeal The order of my learned predecessor passed on 21-6-1991 was challenged before the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh through a Civil Writ Petition No 125 of 1992, While remanding the case to this Court, the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, observed that it is difficult to uphold the view taken by the Financial Commissioner that he could not go into the nature of the transactions of sales in question as the decision made by the Collector was final. 4. We have gone through the record as well as the written arguments tendered by the petitioners and the District Attorney (Revenue). Since the Honble High Court have already held that language in which the section 20 (3) of the Act is couched, is scopic and does not admit of any limitation even in respect of the powers to go into the propriety of an order made by the Collector under section 7 (2) of the Act, the only issue before us is whether the sales in question were bona fide or not. The perusal of record reveals that Shri Narinder Singh, petitioner No 1 is the erstwhile ruler of the former State of Ghund. The grand father of the petitioner No. 1 died about 50 years ago. The father and uncle of the petitioner No. 1 are reported to have been turned out by the British Government and the entire management of the Princely State was assumed by the then Political Agent. Shri Narinder Singh has taken the plea that his father and uncle lived a life of poverty and they were given only a meagre monthly pension. It was after great struggle that the estate was restored to the petitioner No. 1 and the orders for relieving the Court of Ward were passed some time in the year 1957 and thereafter, the monthly pension was stopped. It was after great struggle that the estate was restored to the petitioner No. 1 and the orders for relieving the Court of Ward were passed some time in the year 1957 and thereafter, the monthly pension was stopped. However, Shri Narinder Singh started getting a Privy Purse but on the abolition of the Privy Purse in the year 1970-71, the petitioner, Shri Narinder Singh was left with do other source of income or livelihood and had no other option but to sell certain properties in the month of April/May, 1972. The petitioner No. 1 had sold 41-1 bighas of Ghasni land in Mauza Charian vide registered sale deed dated 5-5-1972 to Smt. Himawati Gupta, resident of Sundernagar, District Mandi for a sum of Rs 8,000. Vide another registered sale-deed of the same date, 41-10 bighas of land in village Charian was sold to Smt Kuldip Parmar for sum of Rs. 8,000 The land measuring 41-19 bighas was sold to Smt. Rajinder Bhatti for sum of Rs 8.000 through a registered sale-deed. Thus, a total of U4-10 bighas of land in village Charian was sold on 5-5-1972. On the same day, the petitioner No. 1 had also sold 10 8 bighas of land to Shri Prein Chand for a sum of Rs 3,000, situated in Mauza Tikkar. The total land sold by him after the’ appointed day’ comes to 134-18 bighas. The Collector, Theog Sub-Division, had recorded the evidence of petitioner No. 1 and his witnesses It was only after consideration of the evidence, the learned Sub-Divisional Collector had come to the conclusion that the sale of 134-18 bighas of land made by the petitioner No. 1 was bona fide and exempted the same while calculating the permissible area. He allowed the petitioner to retain one unit i. e. 161-5 bighas vide his order dated 3L-1-1975. 5. It becomes very clear that financial condition of the petitioner N: 1 was quite deplorable prior to 1971 He had arranged for his own marriage and the marriages of his sisters. Since be had no money to meet the social obligations, there was no alternative with him but to sell the land. He sold only banjar and ghasni land, which were far away from village Ghund This land was not sold to any relative or known family members but to strangers. Since be had no money to meet the social obligations, there was no alternative with him but to sell the land. He sold only banjar and ghasni land, which were far away from village Ghund This land was not sold to any relative or known family members but to strangers. All the pieces of land were sold through registered sale deeds at the then prevailing market rate. The evidence of (he petitioner is supported by the evidence of the other witnesses as well as the documents placed on the record The circumstances surrounding the sales clearly show that the sales were bonafide^ To our mind, the learned Sub-Divisional Collector, Theog in his order dated 31-1-1975 took into consideration the pleas taken by the petitioner No. 1. This order appears to be perfectly legal and ought to have been upheld in appeal and revision. Accordingly, we accept the revision petition and orders dated 21-3-1983 and 14-10-1986 of the Sub-Divisional Collector, Theog and the Commissioner, Shimla Division respectively are set aside. Order dated 31-M975 of the Sub-Divisional Collector, Theog, is upheld. To be communicated. Petition allowed