MELA DEVI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 06.01.1994 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent no.1-Financial Commissioner, Haryana whereby case of petitioners of surplus area has been re-opened. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that Suraj Bhan (since deceased) had filed a declaration on 13.08.1976 before the Prescribed Authority, Hansi under Section 9 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (in short '1972 Act'). He stated that his family consisted of himself, his wife-Mela Devi and minor son-Vinod Kumar and disclosed a total area held by all the members of the family to be 540 kanals 4 marals. He claimed one permissible unit. He also transferred or disposed of 116 kanals of ordinary land or 182 kanals 2 marlas of 'C' category land after 24.01.1971. The Prescribed Authority excluded the area of 116 kanals (ordinary) land sold by the landowner and after allowing the permissible area, declared that there was no surplus land with the land owner. The Prescribed Authority considered the declaration and decided the case of Suraj Bhan (since deceased), vide order dated 29.01.1979 (Annexure P-1) wherein Suraj Bhan and his family members were found to be small land owners and it was held that the holding/area in the hands of Suraj Bhan and his family members is less than their permissible area, therefore, no area of land owners was declared surplus. After lapse of approximately eight years, State of Haryana filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner in the year 1987 wherein the Financial Commissioner exercising the suo motu powers proceeded under Section 18(6) of the '1972 Act' on the ground that area left with the landowner is enough to make good the surplus area which would only come to 108 kanals 4 marlas. Hence, this petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that impugned order 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 Government before the Financial Commissioner in the year 1987 under Section 18(6) of the '1972 Act' praying for invoking his suo motu power to look into the legality of the order passed by the Collector. The Financial Commissioner, after hearing both the parties, set aside the order (Annexure P-1) and passed the impugned order (Annexure P-2) holding that the order was vitiated by patent illegality. Learned counsel further contends that the Financial Commissioner should not have exercised the revisional power after lapse of approximately eight years from the date of order passed by the Prescribed Authority as the State never filed an appeal or revision against the order. Therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P-2) is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relies upon Chandgi Ram vs. State of Haryana and others, 2013 4 RCR(Civ) 1050.

(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and contends that powers of the Financial Commissioner are very wide under the provisions of the '1972 Act'. Learned State counsel further contends that the Financial Commissioner can exercise the power suo motu at any time and call for the record of any proceedings or order of any authority subordinate to him, under Section 18(6) of the '1972 Act'.