JAI PAL Vs. RANDHIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned order of 23rd February, 2011 of Financial Commissioner, Delhi refusing to condone extra -ordinary delay of fifty one years in filing of an appeal under Section 64 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 against mutation order of 23rd February, 1958 passed by the concerned Tehsildar, is assailed in this petition.

(2.) THE challenge to the aforesaid impugned order by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the void orders can be challenged anytime therefore the bar of limitation cannot be raised against the petitioners. According to the petitioners' counsel, the concerned Collector vide order of 15th July, 2009 (Annexure P -9) had rightly cancelled the aforesaid mutation order of 22nd February, 1958, as the Respondents herein were not the legal heirs of Late Shri Ramji Lal in terms of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Shakuntala Devi vs. FCI & Ors., 161(2009)DLT 300, to contend that for correcting the Annual Register, provisions of the Limitation Act are not attracted. It was pointed out by petitioner's counsel that Section 68 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 has no application as the appeal of the Respondents against the collector's order (Annexure P -1) was not maintainable.

(3.) RELIANCE placed by petitioners' counsel upon decision in Shakuntala Devi (Supra), is of no avail, as limitation for filing the appeal was not an issue therein. In Chhoti Devi (Supra), it was found that the discretion exercised to condone the delay was not arbitrary or without cogent reasons whereas in the instant case, there is no satisfactory explanation for the manifestly inordinate delay of about fifty one years in filing the appeal against mutation order of 23 rd February, 1958.