Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.71 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 15 in The Punjab Land Revenue Rules [Entire Act]
Wali Mohammad Magrey & Anr vs Ali Mohammad Gujree & Ors on 20 December, 2021
9. The validity of the other two mutations is dependent upon the
outcome of challenge to the mutation bearing No.305 and because of
this reason only, all the three revision petitions were decided by
common order by learned Financial Commissioner. The perusal of the
4
record reveals that a specific plea was taken by the petitioners before
the Learned Financial Commissioner that the revision petitions were
filed after inordinate delay as the mutation of inheritance bearing No.
305 was attested in the year 1989 whereas the revision petition
challenging the same was filed in the year 2007. The perusal of the
order impugned reveals that the Ld. financial Commissioner has not at
all considered the plea of delay in filing the revision petition, as raised
by the petitioners. No doubt there is no specific period of limitation
provided for filing revision petition under Land Revenue Act but it
has been held by the Hon'ble Division Bench in case titled "Wali
Mohd. Magrey & Ors Vs. Ali Mohammed Gujree & Ors" reported
in 2022(1) JKJ(HC) 307, that the revision petition filed at the
instance of aggrieved party would attract the provisions of limitation.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:
Ghulam Qadir Bhat & Ors vs Financial Commissioner (Revenue) & Ors on 24 September, 2021
10. Admittedly in the instant case, the revision petition was filed after 18
years of the attestation of the mutation. This Court is of the considered
opinion that once the plea of limitation was raised by the petitioners, it
was obligatory on the part of the Ld. financial Commissioner to
decide the same notwithstanding the fact that the respondent No. 3
had claimed to have acquired the knowledge of the mutations in the
month of June 2007. Incidentally, in the judgement mentioned above,
similar plea was raised by the aggrieved party that as soon as the
knowledge of mutation was acquired, the revision was filed.
Interestingly in the instant case though the respondent No. 3 has
specifically stated that she was not present at the time of attestation of
mutation bearing No. 305 but the perusal of mutation reveals that it
carries the thumb impression of Mst. Khati and the respondent No. 3
has nowhere stated in the revision petition that she did not put her
thumb impression on the said mutation. This Court is of the
considered opinion that once the plea of limitation was raised by the
petitioners before the Ld. financial Commissioner, it was obligatory
on the part of Ld. financial Commissioner to consider the said plea
and return finding on the same. No delay can be condoned by
implication but there must be specific finding with regard to the
sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay. The Hon'ble
7
Division Bench in case titled "Ghulam Qadir Bhat versus Financial
commissioner (Revenue) & Ors" reported in 2021(5) JKJ(HC) 1,
has held that the revisional powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily
after an inordinate delay of the passing of the order sought to be
revised and also it has been further observed as under:
1