LAWS(P&H)-1992-10-110

SEWS RAM (DIED) Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On October 21, 1992
SEWS RAM (DIED) Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the order of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana dated November 16, 1979, dismissing his revision petition in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Facts first :-

(3.) It is unfortunate that the Financial Commissioner neither appreciated the facts of the case nor correctly understood the implication of law. The Collector while deciding the surplus area case correctly allowed the landowner permissible area to the extent of 50 standard acres by his order dated March 9, 1961. Later on, by his order dated May 24, 1962, the Collector on his own accord reviewed that order purporting to act on the basis of the decision rendered by the Financial Commissioner in R.O.R. No. 147 of 1959-60 and allowed the permissible area in terms of ordinary acres. The Collector could not review his earlier order dated March 9, 1961. The decision given by the Financial Commissioner to the effect that permissible area of a displaced person has to be determined in terms of ordinary acres will not entitle the Collector to review his earlier order. The view taken by the Financial Commissioner in R.O.R. No. 147 of 1959-60 was not correct and this Court in its Full Bench Judgment in Khan Chand's case had held that if the allotment of a displaced person was in standard acres the permissible area for him would be calculated in standard acres. In the light of this authoritative pronouncement by this Court, the landowner sought review of the order dated May 24, 1962 passed by the Collector. The Collector correctly understood the legal position and sought permission from the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, for reviewing the order of his predecessor. The Commissioner failed to perform his statutory duty. Presumably, he was oblivious of the correct legal position and the facts of the case. He, however, permitted the landowner to move a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner travelled beyond his jurisdiction in declining the revision petition by embarking upon an enquiry which he was called upon to do. He indirectly endorsed the illegality committed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. If he had tried to understand facts of case, he would not have made the error which he made in the instant case, the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Khan Chand's case was approved by the apex Court in The State Haryana and another v. Jiwan Singh, 1975 PunLJ 446 where it was held thus :-