RAGHBIR SARAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1680, 1786 and 2335 of 1971 will be disposed of by this judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved.

(2.) In order to appreciate the real controversy between the parties, facts from Civil Writ Petition No. 1680 of 1971 are given below :-

(3.) Mr. S.K. Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has strenuously argued that the order of the Financial Commissioner is completely illegal and manifestly unjust. He has set aside the well considered judgments of the Commissioner who had dismissed the appeals filed by the tenants as barred by time. The learned counsel has contended that the Commissioner has exercised the jurisdiction vested in him correctly and legally. It is also argued that the tenants had not filed applications for condonation of delay for filing the appeals. It was also contended that the joint appeals filed by the tenants were not competent. There is no dispute on the fact that the tenants were not heard when the surplus area cases of the petitioners were decided. Mr. Goyal has brought to my notice the form 'Q' prescribed by the Rules. It prescribes that a tenant has to make a declaration that the land is not included in the reserved or permissible area of the landowner. The learned counsel, from this, wants me to deduce that the tenants were fully aware of the position of the land and must be presumed to know that the land sought to be purchased had been reserved because by order of the Collector (Agrarian Reforms) other lands had been declared surplus and the lands in dispute have been allowed to be reserved. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel. As noticed earlier, they were asserting before the Assistant Collector even in the year 1969 that the lands of the petitioner-landowners have not been reserved and that the matter was pending consideration. In fact, they had made a prayer in their reply that the purchase proceedings be kept pending till the decision regarding reservation. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the tenants knew about the reservation by the petitioners. This fact also lends credence to the theory of tenants that in fact they came to know about the reservation in the beginning of January, 1970. Mr. Goyal has contended that if, for the sake of argument, it be taken that the tenants came to know about the orders of reservations in the beginning of January, 1970, even then they have to explain delay of each day from the date of knowledge and, according to him, this has not been done. I am afraid, I cannot agree to this suggestion also. The tenants were not a party, so the limitation against them will not start from the date of the orders. It will start from the date of knowledge. They could file the appeal within 60 days from the date of knowledge as provided by Section 18 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, which provision has been made applicable to the proceedings under the Act by Section 24 of the Act. Mr. Goyal has not been able to cite any precedent to show that an appeal filed within 60 days from the date of knowledge will be barred by limitation.