LALA RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of CWP 5990 / 1991 and CWI 6038 / 1991 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the cases.

(2.) Petitioner is aggrieved of orders dated 16/06/1988; 18/01/1990; 5/12/1990 and 1/04/1991 (Annexures P 1 to P5) passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade Gurgaon; Collector, Gurgaon; Commissioner Gurgaon Division and Financial Commissioner, Haryana, respectively.

(3.) Brief facts be first noticed. Petitioner, Lala Ram, son of Dillu, and one Khem Ram, his brother, put together were owners of 1/ 6th share of the total land measuring 46 Kanals 8 Marlas, situate at village Kanhai, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. Admittedly, most of the remaining land or the entire remaining land is owned by Messers. Ansal Housing and Estates Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Delhi Towers and Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, respondents. They moved an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Gurgaon, for partition of the joint land under S. 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter called the Act) on 3/11/1986. Mode of partition was drawn on 5/10/1987 and objections filed by the petitioner or Khem Ram, respondent No. 3, against the mode of partition drawn by the Assistant Collector were dismissed on 5/05/1988. Formal order of drawing instrument of partition was passed on 16/06/1988. Instrument of partition Annexure R 2/2 dated 16/06/1988 would show that the case was taken up by the Assistant Collector on 5/05/1988, for effecting the partition of the land and it was ordered that the land be partitioned. Further, a reading of instrument of partition shows that the period of limitation for filing the appeal had already expired and, consequently, the Sanad Tagsim was to be prepared so that orders dated 5/05/1988, passed by the Assistant Collector were complied with and the partition acted upon. It is an admitted position that neither the petitioner No. 3 filed any appeal against orders dated 5/10/1987, vide which the mode of partition was drawn or the order dated 5/05/1988, when the objections raised by the petitioner or respondent No. 3 with regard to the mode of partition were dismissed. However, an appeal against orders dated 16/06/1988, vide which the instrument of partition was drawn was filed before the Collector who, vide orders dated 18/01/1990, dismissed the same. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision before the Commissioner which too met with the same fate on 5/12/1990. Still aggrieved before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which too was dismissed on Ist April, 1991. As mentioned above, the petitioner has challenged all these orders in the present writ petitions on the solitary ground that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Collector was wrongly dismissed as timebarred.