RAMZAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , S & C (Reh.). This is a petition under Rule 18 of the Rules for disposal of surplus rural property against the order dated 9.8.1996 passed by the Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation)-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had applied to the Tehsildar (Sales) Gurgaon vide their application dated 13.2.92 for the transfer/purchase of land in dispute i.e. the land comprised in khasra No. 21/15 (8.0) and 16 (8.0) measuring 16 kanals on the basis of continuous possession since kharif 1985. The Naib Tehsildar (Sales) Gurgaon vide his orders dated 18.7.1994 rejected the said application on the ground of being time-barred. The petitioners filed a revision petition against the above order of the Naib Tehsildar (Sales), Gurgaon before the Joint Secretary-cum- Settlement Commissioner, Haryana who rejected the same vide his orders dated 9.8.96. It is against the above order that the present petition has been filed before me.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by both sides and also gone through the relevant record and facts of the case. It is a fact that the petitioners had sent their application on 13.2.92 which was the last date for such applications. The petitioners have also produced a copy of the postal certificate in their support. Though the application of the petitioners was received late in the office of the Tehsildar (Sales), Gurgaon, yet it cannot be denied that they had applied within the prescribed limited. The ratio of the judgement 1994 PLJ 461 would be applicable in the instant case as well. In the case under consideration of the Hon'ble High Court, the application was made before the limitation prescribed but was received late. In the instant case the application were sent within the limit prescribed and was received late. It is immaterial whether the application was received late by one day or by four days. The principle adopted in 1994 PLJ 461 would therefore be applicable in the instant case also. The Ld. Joint Secretary-cum-Settlement Commissioner has wrongly distinguished the two situations. I, therefore, accept the contention of the petitioners and set aside the impugned orders of the Joint Secretary-cum-Settlement Commissioner as well as the Naib Tehsildar (Sales), Gurgaon. The case is remanded to the Tehsildar (Sales), Gurgaon with the direction to consider the application of the petitioners on merit as per the Government policy and take a decision accordingly. Announced. Ordered accordingly.