GURDIAL SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rules directed against two orders of the learned Financial Commissioner, one in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction passed on 26th April, 1962, and the other under his powers of review of 21-7-1962.

(2.) It is not necessary to set out the facts of this controversy as the matter in dispute has yet to be determined on merits. It would be sufficient to say that the petitioners Gurdial Singh and others purchased land measuring 9 acres from the respondent Smt. Haminder Parkash Kaur for a sum of Rs. 14,000/- on 18th July, 1957. The land so sold was a portion of the land acquired by the vendor Smt. Haminder Parkash Kaur from her father Shri Sant Parkash Singh. Subsequently, Shri Sant Parkash Singh also a respondent in this petition reserved an area of land under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act which did not include the land sold to the petitioners. The area sold to the petitioners was declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners to the Commissioner from the order of the Special Collector. This appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner on 30th May, 1961. It appears that two separate appeals were preferred by the petitioners to the Commissioner and they were both decided on the same day. One was dismissed and the other was allowed. The petitioners applied for a copy of the Commissioner's order dismissing their appeal with regard to the area in suit. Obviously, through inadvertence the copy of the order allowing the appeal was sent to the petitioner. The mistake was subsequently rectified and the petitioners were furnished the correct copy on 7th September, 1961. The present revision petition was filed before the Financial Commissioner on 30th October, 1961, 108 days after the appellate order of the Commissioner.

(3.) In the petition for revision before the Financial Commissioner the point was taken that it was barred by limitation. There is no statutory provision prescribing the time for presentation of a revision petition and it was so argued before the learned Financial Commissioner. The petition for revision was dismissed on the short ground that the petitioners had not furnished an affidavit to explain delay in presenting the revision petition. Even if the petitioners had filed the revision on the day following the receipt of the copy on 7th September, 1961, the petition would have been made after the expiry of 90 days which according to the learned Financial Commissioner was the period of limitation for such petitions. The petitioners wanted to file an affidavit to explain the delay but this was not allowed and the revision petition was in consequence dismissed as barred by time on 26th April, 1962. Having unsuccessfully attempted to have this order reviewed the petitioners have now come up to this Court in writ proceedings.