STATE OF HARYANA Vs. NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision petition under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 praying for invoking the suo motu powers of the Financial Commissioner to call for the record in connection with order dated 9.2.1979 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Bhiwani in a surplus area case. Notice was issued to the respondent and arguments have been heard from both the parties.

(2.) COUNSEL for the respondent raised some preliminary issues and pointed out that in view of various authorities already existing on the subject the present revision petition is not prima facie maintainable. It was, therefore, decided not to go into the merits of this case and hear preliminary objections about the maintainability of this petition. It was argued that the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 9.2.1979 was not an ex parte order and the State was duly represented by the Naib Tehsildar. Attention was drawn to the provision of Section 18(1) of the Act, whereby the aggrieved party could have approached the Collector in appeal against the orders of Prescribed Authority within a period of 15 days and if further aggrieved by the order of the Collector prefer a revision under Section 18(4) to the Commissioner within 30 days of the order. Counsel for the respondent has strongly argued that the revision petition filed under Section 18(6) of the Act by the State Government does not even attempt to disclose any reason for not taking these actions and for approaching the Financial Commissioner directly after a lapse of more than 19 years. Further attention of this Court has been drawn to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Loku Ram v. State of Haryana, decided by the said Court on 20th August, 1998 : 1999(1) PLJ 1 : 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 141 (SC), wherein it was held that the suo motu powers under Section 18(6) of the Act have to be exercised within a reasonable time. Specifically attention was drawn to the interpretation of the term "at any time" used in Section 18(6) of the Act. The counsel further drew my attention to the decisions already taken by the various Courts of the Financial Commissioners including one of this very Court in ROR No. 91 of 1995-96 decided on June 8th, 1999. It was argued that the facts of this case are no different from that case and thus there was no justification for re-opening the case after a lapse of more than 19 years.

(3.) AFTER careful consideration of the preliminary objections raised by the respondent I am convinced that this is not a fit case for exercising the suo motu powers of the Financial Commissioner under Section 18(6) of the Act. When the law has prescribed a short period of 15 days and 30 days for appeal/revision against the orders of the Prescribed Authority/Collector there is no case for the State to approach the Financial Commissioner directly without taking recourse to these provisions. The revision petition does not disclose any reason for inordinate delay and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Loku Ram v. The State of Haryana is clearly applicable in this case. When two sub-sections of Section 18 prescribe short periods for getting relief from the orders of Prescribed Authority which have not been availed of by the State without any reason it would be unreasonable to hold that the Financial Commissioner has unlimited powers to entertain this revision petition after a lapse of 20 years. Under these circumstances, I do not propose to go into the merits of this case as I am of the view that this is not a fit case for exercising the suo motu jurisdiction of Financial Commissioner under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The revision petition is, therefore, hereby dismissed. To be communicated. Revision dismissed.