STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAJKUMAR BRIJENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this appeal relates to declaration of surplus area under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). On coming into force of the aforesaid Act, ceiling proceedings were initiated and an order was passed by the Collector on 14-1-1976 as a result of which 9,000 bighas of land belonging to the original owner Raja Lakshman Singh, whose heirs are respondents in this appeal, was declared surplus and 1,000 bighas was left as the land which they were found entitled to hold within the permissible limits on the basis of the number of units in the family.

(2.) The State, it seems, felt aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector. Hence, it filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The appeal was, however, withdrawn by the State on March 20, 1976. As a result of the withdrawal of the appeal preferred against the order of the Collector, the order passed by the Collector attained finality. The Financial Commissioner, however, seems to have exercised his suo motu power under Section 20 (3) of the Act and by Order dated 7-11-91 set aside the order of the Collector dated 14-1-1971. It may be noted here that the Financial Commissioner had initiated the suo motu proceedings on 21-8-1990. As a consequence of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, the permissible area in the hands of the respondents was still reduced, hence, they preferred a writ petition against the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. A number of grounds had been taken by the respondents impugning the validity of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. Out of the several points, one related to the power of the Financial Commissioner to exercise the suo motu power after the State had withdrawn the appeal and the other was regarding delayed exercise of the power, that is to say, about 15 years after passing of the order by the Collector. It may also be noted that the appeal preferred by the State against the order of the Collector before the Commissioner was also withdrawn around the same period, namely March, 1976.

(3.) The High Court, observed that it was not necessary to go into the merits of different grounds raised by the respondents challenging the order of Financial Commissioner and preferred to deal with the question relating to power of the Financial Commissioner to take up the matter suo moto after the appeal preferred by the State Government was withdrawn. So far the question of delayed exercise of the power is concerned that has only been mentioned but no further discussion has been held except to observe that normal period prescribed for filing appeal is 60 days and for revision, it is 90 days.