SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of two writ petitions being CWP No. 10642 of 2005 and CWP No. 10 of 2005 as both the writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioners and the subject matter of the controversy is also the same. The facts which emerge from record show that in the year 1974 the plot in question was allotted to Shadi Ram alias Shadi Lal. Petitioner No. 1-Suresh Kumar is son of Shadi Ram whereas petitioner No. 2 is his widow.

(2.) IN the year 1989 an order of resumption was passed against Shadi Ram and the plot in question was ordered to be resumed on account of not raising construction. It appears that an appeal was filed by the aforesaid Shadi Ram before the appellate authority. However, the said appeal was dismissed in the year 1990. Shadi Ram, thereafter, did not choose to challenge the appellate order any further. Shadi Ram died in the year 1993.

(3.) IN the year 2004, the respondents issued a proclamation for auction of the plot in question. On that the petitioners filed CWP No. 10 of 2005 before this Court. The auction of the plot in question was challenged. Under an interim order passed by a Division Bench, the auction proceedings were stayed. It is claimed by the petitioners that when the aforesaid interim orders were produced before the authorities, then it came to their knowledge that resumption proceedings had already been initiated against Shadi Ram and even appeal filed by Shadi Ram had been dismissed in the year 1990. On acquiring the aforesaid knowledge, the petitioners immediately filed an appeal against the order of appellate authority before the Financial Commissioner and filed petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. All the facts, which have been noticed above were pleaded in the said application. However, vide an order March 24, 2005, the learned Financial Commissioner has refused to condone the delay, consequently, dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As a result thereof, the revision petition filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed in limine being barred by limitation. The aforesaid order dated March 24, 2005 is the subject-matter of challenge in CWP No. 10642 of 2005.