HAZURA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a right-holder in the revenue estate of village Kuranganwali, Tehsil Sirsa District Hissar. He owned 35.62 standard acres of land equivalent to 114.85 ordinary acres. The Collector, Surplus Area, declared an area of 5.62 standard acres out of this land as surplus, under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, and allowed the petitioner to retain 30 standard acres of land equal to 100.34 ordinary acres, as his permissible area. This order was passed on February 8, 1961. Thereafter, this decision was reviewed and the said Collector, by his order, dated June 5, 1962 (Annexure A), held that the petitioner was entitled to 30 standard acres of land equal to 60 ordinary acres, and as a consequence, declared 15.32 standard acres as surplus instead of 5.62 standard acres which had been declared as surplus by his previous order. The petitioner challenged this order by way of appeal, filed on July 29, 1967, copy Annexure B, before the Commissioner. The learned Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was belated one. The said order of the Commissioner is dated March 19, 1968 (Annexure C). The orders of the Collector and the Commissioner (Annexures A and C respectively), have been challenged in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, as high-lighted by Mrs. Surjit Bindra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Collector, did not have unlimited and unrestricted power of review and the previous order dated February 8, 1961, by which the petitioner had been granted 100.34 ordinary acres as permissible area could not be set aside by way of review. Reliance, in support of this contention, has been placed on Ram Chand v. The Punjab State and others, 1970 72 PunLR 231; Nand Ram v. The Financial Commissioner, Planning, Punjab and another, 1971 PunLJ 376and Khan Chand v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and another, 1979 PunLJ 417. I am in agreement with the ratio of the decisions in the said cases and hold that the Collector did not have the jurisdiction to review his previous order, only on the ground that the petitioner had been allowed larger area in ordinary acres then he was entitled to on account of mis-interpretation of law or that a different view had been taken in subsequent decisions. In this view of the matter, the order (Annexure A), was clearly beyond jurisdiction.

(3.) Faced with this situation, the contention of the learned State counsel is, that though the impugned order (Annexure A) was passed on June 5, 1962, yet the appeal was filed on July 29, 1967, and thus, the same was clearly time-barred. In view of the same the appeal was rightly dismissed by the Commissioner, vide his order dated March 19, 1968 (Annexure C). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, under Rule 6(7) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called the Rules), after the order declaring surplus area is passed by the Collector, statement in Form 'F' has to be conveyed to the landowner and the limitation for the purpose of filing an appeal starts from the date when the said statement is received by the landowner. In the present case, it is urged, the statement in Form 'F' was never conveyed to the petitioner in accordance with the rule. The learned State counsel has drawn my attention to a report of the process-server showing that the petitioner refused to accept the statement in Form 'F' and the learned Commissioner also, in his order (Annexure C), makes a reference to the same. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the statement in Form 'F' had to be conveyed to the petitioner or served on him in accordance with Section 90 of the Punjab Tenancy Act (hereinafter called the Act), read with Rule 6(7) of the Rules. A perusal of Section 90 of the Act leaves no manner of doubt that the notice of the statement in Form 'F' was required to be affixed on the outer door of the residential house of the party concerned in case the party refused to accept the same. In the present case, as the petitioner, according to the report of the process-server, refused to accept the statement in Form 'F' it was mandatory for the authorities concerned to see that the same was fixed on the outer door of the house of the petitioner. Admittedly, this was not done. As such, it cannot be held that the appeal by the petitioner before the Commissioner was filed beyond limitation. In fact, the learned Commissioner did not apply his mind to this aspect of the question and somehow he was of the opinion that the refusal by the petitioner to receive the statement in Form 'F' was sufficient compliance of the rules relating to service of notices etc.