PARGAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine will dispose of Civil Writ Nos. 1781, 1782, 1793 and 1794 of 1965 as all these petitions arise from one order of the Financial Commissioner, dated the 28th May, 1965. By these petitions the legality and propriety of the orders of the Commissioner dated the 10th February, 1965 and of the Financial Commissioner dated the 28th May, 1965 (copies Annexures 'C' and 'E' to the petition respectively) have been called in question.

(2.) It is not necessary to State the facts as the only point that has been urged before me by Mr. Nand Lal Dhingra, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the learned Commissioner erred in law in dismissing the appeals of the petitioners on the ground that the same were barred by limitation and that the Financial Commissioner failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by affirming the decision of the Commissioner. According to the learned counsel the period for filing appeal against the order of the Collector, Surplus, started from the date when form 'F' was served and not from the date when the order was passed by the Collector and that in all these cases form 'F' having not been served on the petitioners at all, the appeals filed before the Commissioner were within limitation. Reliance in support of his contention is placed on the decision in Vir Singh v. The State of Punjab and others,1970 RajdhaniLR 435. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents, very fairly concedes that in view of the decision in Vir Singh's case the orders of the learned Commissioner and the learned Financial Commissioner cannot legally be sustained, because in all these cases form 'F' was not served at all on the petitioners and that the appeals of the petitioners before the learned Commissioner could not be dismissed on the ground that the same were barred by limitation. In this view of the matter there is no other alternative but to quash the impugned orders of the learned Commissioner and the learned Financial Commissioner. Consequently, these petitions are allowed, the orders of the learned Commissioner and the learned Financial Commissioner are set aside and the cases are sent back to the learned Commissioner for deciding them afresh on merits after hearing the petitioners. The petitioners through their learned counsel have been directed to appear before the learned Commissioner, on the 5th June, 1972. In the circumstances of the case I make on order as to costs. Before parting with the judgment it may be observed that Mr. Dhingra, learned counsel has not contested before me the correctness of the order of the Collector because he would be challenging its correctness before the learned Commissioner to whom I am remanding the case for hearing on merits. Petition accepted, Case remanded.