CHANDGI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.9.1990 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2 Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby the case of the petitioner of surplus area has been re-opened.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is owner in possession of 765 kanals of land of 'C' category and his land was never declared surplus under any of the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), which came into force on 22.12.1972. Under Section 9 of the Act petitioner filed a declaration dated 13.8.1976, giving particulars of all of his land and particulars of his family members to the Prescribed Authority, Thanesar. The Prescribed Authority considered the declaration and decided the surplus area case of the petitioner vide order dated 16.8.1978 (Annexure P-1) wherein petitioner and his family members were found to be small land owners and it was held that the holding/area in the hands of the petitioner and his family members is less than their permissible area, therefore, no area of land owners was declared surplus. After lapse of 11 years, State of Haryana through Under Secretary (Admn.) filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner on 25.7.1989 wherein the Financial Commissioner exercising the suo motu powers proceeded under Section 18(6) of the Act on the ground that two sons of the petitioner i.e. Narinder Kumar and Rajesh Kumar were not born on or before the appointed date and additional units have been wrongly allotted to them.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that order dated 16.8.1978 (Annexure P-1) was not challenged by the Government. At that time, the Prescribed Authority had considered the entire case. Neither an appeal nor revision was filed, however, revision was filed by the office i.e. Under Secretary (Admn.) before the Financial Commissioner on 25.7.1989 under Section 18(6) of the Act praying for invoking his suo motu power to look into the legality of the order after calling the record from the Collector. Financial Commissioner, after hearing both the parties, set aside the order dated 16.8.1978 (Annexure P-1) and passed the order dated 11.9.1990 (Annexure P-3) holding that the order was vitiated by patent illegality. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that Financial Commissioner should not have exercised the revisional power after lapse of 11 years from the date of order passed by the Prescribed Authority as the State never filed an appeal or revision against the order. So the impugned order (Annexure P-3) is not sustainable in the eyes of law.