SHANTI DEVI Vs. COMMISSIONER, FEROZEPUR DIVISION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 07.08.1991 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent No. 1 - Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, according permission to review the order dated 03.02.1986 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Collector (Agrarian), Abohar. Brief facts of the case are that Sheo Karan, father of the petitioner, was a big landowner within the meaning of Punjab Land Reforms Act. During the pendency of surplus proceedings, he died. The Collector ordered the filing of the case and directed that the land in the hands of legal heirs of Sheo Koran i.e. the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 be reconsidered afresh. Fresh report was submitted. The Collector vide order dated 13.03.1980 (Annexure P/1) allowed to each of three legal heirs of Sheo Karan permissible area and concluded the surplus area proceedings. While passing order dated 13.03.1980 (Annexure P/1), Collector (Agrarian) took into consideration the total holding of each legal heir and had also verified regarding the opening of the inheritance of Sheo Karan. The successor in office of the Collector (Agrarian) Abohar, in the year 1985, sought permission from respondent No. 1 for reviewing the order dated 13.03.1980 (Annexure P/1). Respondent No. 1, vide order dated 01.09.1985 accorded the permission to review the order (Annexure P/1). After the grant of permission, the Collector (Agrarian), called for the records, took fresh evidence and vide order dated 03.02.1986 (Annexure P/2) affirmed the order under review holding that each legal heir was entitled to a permissible area of 7 hectares. At that point of time, the Collector had taken into consideration the calculation submitted by the revenue agency representing the State and the area in the hands of tenant was also taken as tenant's permissible area. The order dated 03.02.1986 (Annexure P/2) became final as they were passed in the presence of the State representative. After a lapse of more than four years of passing the order dated 03.02.1986 (Annexure P/2), the Special Collector (Agrarian), Fazilka, in the year 1989, made a reference again to the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur for permission to review the order dated 03.02.1986 and 13.03.1980 on the ground that benefit of permissible area of 7 hectares was given to the petitioner wrongly whereas she was not entitled to the same. The Commissioner vide order dated 07.08.1991 (Annexure P/3) granted permission to review the proceedings afresh for determination of the surplus area in the hands of the petitioner. The said action of the Collector and the Commissioner has been impugned in the present writ petition on the ground that the impugned order is bad in law specifically that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and the order is ex parte, secondly, multiple reviews are not permitted specially when the State is a party to earlier proceedings, thirdly although there is no limitation prescribed for review of the orders even then the reasonable period is required to be taken for the purposes of limitation.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued. The respondent-State filed written statement through Special Collector (Agrarian), Ferozepur and admitted that Sheo Karan, father of the petitioner, had died during the pendency of the surplus proceedings. The property has come into the hands of the legal heirs. The State has also admitted about the earlier orders and the review order passed by the competent authorities. It has been submitted that the petitioner was duly served through munadi and hence, the impugned orders are legal and valid.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.