GIRJA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 against the order dated 22-8-1978 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Prescribed Authority, Asandh and mutation No. 1553 sanctioned by A.C. II Grade. Counsel for petitioners argued that late Shri Udho, big landowner S/o Shri Munshi transferred his half share in the land measuring 903 kanals 9 marlas situated in Village Rahra, Tehsil Kaithal to late Smt. Shubhai and Smt. Bimla his wives in equal shares for which judgement and decree dated 15.11.1969 was passed by Sub-Judge, Kaithal in Civil Suit No. 1969 titled as Udho v. Smt. Shubhai and mutation to this effect entered in the revenue record etc. After the transfer of land to petitioners No. 1 & 2, late Shri Udho was left with no land at all and therefore could not have furnished declaration under Section 1 read with Sub- section 4 of Section 9 of the Act in respect of the said land having transferred the same to the petitioners. Therefore, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority was illegal and deserves to be set aside.

(2.) WE have gone through the petition. The petitioners seek to challenge the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 22.8.1978 after almost 30 years of the orders being passed seeking suo-motu intervention of the Financial Commissioner without availing any remedy of appeal, review or revision. In their petition they have also not indicated any reasons for taking such a long time to assail the order passed almost thirty year ago nor why the provision of appeal etc. was not availed.

(3.) SECTION 18 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 deals with appeal, revision etc. Section 18(1) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act provides a period of 15 days to file an appeal before the Collector against the order of the Prescribed Authority. Section 18(2) provides another period of 15 days to file an appeal to the Commissioner against the order of the Collector. Section 18(4) also provides a period of 30 days from the order of the Collector to file a revision petition before the Commissioner to challenge the legality and propriety of such order. Thus section 18(1), 18(2) and 18(3) clearly lay down the time limits for exercising the right of appeal against the. orders of the Prescribed Authority to both the Collector and the Commissioner as well as for revision before the Commissioner. Section 18(6), under which the present petition has been filed, empowers the Financial Commissioner to suo-motu call for the record of any proceedings at any time for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings. However, the expression "at any time" as contained in Section 18(6) cannot be indefinite as has been held by a full Bench of the Supreme Court in Loku Ram v. State of Haryana, as reported in 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 141 : PLJ 1999(1) page 1 where their lordships held that "that under Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act Section 18(6) expression 'at any time' cannot be indefinite". Thus, revisionary powers of Financial Commissioner have to be exercised within a reasonable time.