BHIM SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra -court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed against the order dated 05.02.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 14887 of 2011) filed by the appellants challenging the orders dated 24.03.2003 (Annexure P -3); 03.09.2003 (Annexure P -4) and 24.02.2011 (Annexure P -6) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gohana; Collector, Sonepat; and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, permitting the private respondents to proceed with execution of the ejectment order passed against the appellants, has been dismissed. Though there is 64 days' delay in filing the instant appeal and the appellants have filed an application (CM No. 1684 -LPA of 2015) for condoning the said delay, yet we have heard learned counsel for the appellants on merits and have gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY , the private respondents were small land owners. They filed eviction application against the appellants under Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). After issuing notice to the appellants and providing them opportunity of hearing, the said application was allowed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gohana, vide order dated 27.10.1986, whereby the appellants were ordered to be evicted from 85 kanals 12 marlas of land. However, they were allowed to retain 5 kanals of land, till they are rehabilitated on the surplus land. After their rehabilitation, they were also ordered to be evicted from those 5 kanals of land. The said order was upheld in appeal by the Collector, Sonepat, vide order dated 17.11.1987 (Annexure P -1). However, as far as the question of compensation for improvement made in the land by the appellants was concerned, they were granted liberty to move an application before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gohana. Instead of filing revision against the said order under the Act, the appellants challenged the orders of the revenue courts before the civil court. Ultimately, the civil court rejected the case of the appellants.

(3.) THEREAFTER , on 27.07.2001, the private respondents moved an application for delivery of possession of the land, in terms of the ejectment order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, which was upheld by the Collector. The appellants contested the said application on the ground of limitation. They pleaded that under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, the said application should have been filed within three years, whereas the case of the private respondents was that the said execution application could have been filed within 12 years, as provided under Article 136 of the Limitation Act. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade and the Collector, vide orders dated 24.03.2003 (Annexure P -3) and 03.09.2003 (Annexure P -4) rejected the objections of the appellants while holding that the private respondents could move an application for enforcement of the eviction order passed under the Act within 12 years, as provided under Article 136 of the Limitation Act. Though the Commissioner vide order dated 08.11.2007 (Annexure P -5) took a different view and made recommendation to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, for setting aside the aforesaid orders passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade as well as the Collector, on the ground that such application could have been filed within 3 years, as provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 24.02.2011 (Annexure P -6) rejected the said reference while holding that Article 136 of the Limitation Act is applicable, as the expression "Civil Court" in the Article 136 of the Limitation Act includes the Revenue Courts for the purpose of execution of their orders. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned order dated 05.02.2015, has upheld the order of the Financial Commissioner, while making the following observations :