The doctrine of merger applies to decisions of superior courts, including the High Court, and the principle of res judicata bars subsequent challenges to decisions that have merged.

D.B.LAL, J.

1. These five writ petitions, (C. W. P. No. 3097 of 1977, 3255 of 1977, 3254 of 1977, 3253 of 1977 and 3252 of 1977) deal with a common question of law and fact and hence can conveniently be disposed by a single judgment. The petitioners claim to be land-owners of different parcels of land situate in village Mehmood Khera, Tehsil Muktsar, District Faridkot. The land originally belonged to one Balwant Singh who died on Jan. 13, 1967 and the petitioners became owners by succession and respondents 2 and 3 are tenants and since they failed to pay rent from Rabi 1968 to Kharif 1970, and also failed to cultivate the land properly, and thus they rendered it unfit for cultivation, the petitioners filed an application under S. 9 (1) (ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act for the ejectment of the respondents 2 and 3. The plea of the respondents 2 and 3 was that they had paid rent to one Paras Ram, who held power of attorney from the petitioners. The plea prevailed with the Assistant Collector and the application of the petitioners was dismissed on January 24, 1972. Thereafter the petitioners filed appeal before the Collector, Faridkot, which too was dismissed. Thereafter a revision petition was filed before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, which was also dismissed in the year 1973. Finally a revision was filed by the petitioners before the Financial Commissioner Punjab, respondent No. 1 and by his order dated April 2, 1976 the plea of the petitioners was accepted and the order of ejectment was passed against the respondents 2 and 3 from the land in dispute. Being dissatisfied with the order of the Financial Commissioner, the respondents filed a Civil Writ Petition before the High Court, which was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench on May 5, 1976. After the judgment was pronounced in the Civil Writ Petition, respondents 2 and 3 were ejected from the disputed land and possession was delivered to the petitioners. Since then, the petitioners are in possession over the land. Respondents 2 and 3, however, became active once again and filed an application for review before the Assistant Collector, Muktsar, stating that they were resettled tenants over the surplus land of which the original owner was Balwant Singh, and under para No. 13 of the Punjab Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as the Scheme ) they were not the tenants and as such could not be ejected from the land. The said application was, however, dismissed by the Assistant Collector. Thereafter respondents 2 and 3 filed review application before the Financial Commissioner, respondent No. 1, on the very same ground and succeeded. The Financial Commissioner held that he can review his previous order and held respondents 2 and 3 to be allottees of the disputed land within the meaning of para 13 of the Scheme and as such they were not liable to ejectment. The petitioners contended that the order of the Financial Commissioner, Annexure P-1, which was confirmed by the High Court in the Civil Writ Petition could not be reviewed by the Financial Commissioner. It was no longer the order of the Financial Commissioner but had merged into the order of the High Court and the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to review that order. Besides, it was also contended that the review application was barred by limitation as prescribed under S. 82 (1) (b) of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Therefore, the petitioners claimed for a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order Annexure P-2 of the Financial Commissioner, respondent No. 1, whereby he reviewed his previous order and held respondents 2 and 3 to be allottees and not tenants under the petitioners.

2. The contentions of respondents 2 and 3 are that they were ejected tenants under S. 9 (1) (i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as Act No. X of 1953) and under S. 10-A of this Act, they were to be resettled as tenants over the sur