Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana & Others vs Chandgi Ram on 21 January, 2014
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Fateh Deep Singh
IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 21.01.2014
LPA No.97 of 2014
State of Haryana & others ...Appellants
Versus
Chandgi Ram ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
Present: Mr. Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana, for the appellants.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 08.07.2013, whereby an order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana on 11.09.1990 was set aside.
The respondent claimed to be owner in possession of 765 kanals of land of 'C' category. The respondent claims to have filed a declaration under Section 9 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') giving particulars about his land and family members on 13.08.1976. The Prescribed Authority passed an order on 16.08.1978 to the effect that the whole land of the respondent was within his permissible area keeping in view the additional family units available to the land-owner.
However, on 11.09.1990, the Financial Commissioner, Haryana while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 18(6) of the Act allowed the petition filed by the State. Aggrieved against the said order, the respondent filed a writ petition before this Court on the ground that the revisional jurisdiction could not have been entertained after long lapse of time. Kumar Vimal 2014.01.27 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 2 LPA No.97 of 2014
Learned Single Bench has allowed the writ petition holding that though revisional jurisdiction could be exercised at any time, but that does not mean that it could be exercised after 11 years of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. Consequently, the order (Annexure P-3) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana was set aside.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as Loku Ram Vs. State of Haryana 1999(1) PLJ 1 examined the provisions of the Act in question and held that when two sub-sections prescribe a very short period of 15 and 30 days respectively, it will be unreasonable to hold that the Financial Commissioner has unlimited power to entertain a petition after a lapse of several years. The Court observed as under:
"6. Section 18(2) of the Act prescribes a period of 15 days for filing an appeal and Section 18(4) prescribes a period of 30 days for filing a revision before the Commissioner. When the two sub-sections prescribe a very short period of 15 and 30 days respectively, it will be unreasonable to hold that the Financial Commissioner has unlimited power to entertain a revision after a lapse of several years.
7. The test prescribed by this Court in State of Gujarat Vs. P. Raghav AIR 1969 SC 1297 has been ignored by the Financial Commissioner in the present case. His order does not disclose any reason to hold that a period of nearly seven years is reasonable on the facts of the case. Nor has the High Court gone into the question and decided whether the power has been exercised on the facts and circumstances within a reasonable period. Hence we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. The order of the Financial Commissioner is also set aside. The order of the Collector dated 18.06.82 is restored. No costs."
Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Partap Vs. State of Haryana 2002 (2) PLJ 302 has held that Financial Commissioner can exercise his suo moto power at any time; however, the term 'at any time' cannot be indefinite, but represents a reasonable time keeping in view facts of each case not of the order being reviewed.
Kumar Vimal 2014.01.27 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 3 LPA No.97 of 2014
In Santosh Kumar Shivgonda Patil & others Vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & others (2009) 9 SCC 352, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"11. It seems to be fairly settled that if a statute does not prescribe the time- limit for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. Where the legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise of such power within reasonable time is inherent therein."
In view of the aforesaid judgments, we find that the order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court does not warrant any interference in the present intra court appeal.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
21.01.2014 (FATEH DEEP SINGH)
Vimal JUDGE
Kumar Vimal
2014.01.27 11:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh