RAM BHAGAT ALIAS BHAGAT RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Bhagat Ram and others seek a writ in the nature of Certiorari so as to quash orders dated December 21, 1979 passed by Financial Commissioner Haryana vide which the revision petition preferred by Chhelu, who died during the pendency of revision petition and survived by the petitioners, against the orders dated August 10, 1971 passed by Collector was dismissed primarily on account of limitation.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case reveal that Banwari, the tenant under Chhelu filed an application for grant of proprietory rights before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Dadri on December 10, 1968. The land under tenancy of Banwari was 17 3 acres and the same is comprised in Khasra Nos. 49 and 60 The Assistant Collector granted tht proprietory rights to Banwari vide his order dated July 13, 1970. The appeal carried against the aforesaid order by the landowner did not find favour with the said authority and was accordingly dismissed on August 10, 1971, thus, constraining the petitioner to file revision petition before the Commissioner who vide his orders dated May 4, 1973 held that the revision petition was not competent and it should have been filed before the Financial Commissioner. The petitioner, thereafter filed a Revision Petition before the Financial Commissioner which, as referred to above, was dismissed on December 21, 1979. It requires to be mentioned here that against the orders passed by the Collector dated August 10, 1971, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Commissioner on January 25, 1973, i. e. after about one year and six months from the date of passing of order by the Collector.

(3.) NO application was given before the Commissioner for condonation of delay. It is no doubt true that even though no period of limitation is expressly prescribed for preferring a revision petition yet the Financial Commissioner can refuse to entertain the revision petition after 90 days, the period assigned for an appeal, unless some plausible and satisfactory cause of delay is shown. The party seeking condonation has to explain the cause of delay. It is clearly made out from the records of this case that the petitioner applied for certified copy of order passed by the Collector on August 27, 1971 and the same was prepared on September 13, 1971 and yet the revision petition before the Commissioner was filed on January 25, 1973. The learned Financial Commissioner while dealing with the question of delay, in my view, rightly held that period spent before Commissioner could have been condoned if the mistake of choosing a wrong forum was on account of bona fide mistake but inasmuch as even before the Commissioner, the revision petition was preferred after a year and half, there was no question to condone the delay.