NARINDER SINGH Vs. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 20.11.2007.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the respondents Ram Swaroop etc. were tenants under the petitioner Narinder Singh in respect of land measuring 68 10 bighas in Village Nawan Graon. The petitioner had obtained an order for realization of arrears of rent from the competent authority against respondents No. 3 to 5 to the tune of Rs. 4178.90 inclusive of costs and in execution, the land belonging to respondents No. 3 to 5 was also auctioned which auction was also confirmed. The respondents challenged the said auction and the orders of confirmation. In a writ petition No. 224 of 1981 filed by the respondents against the petitioner and others, a compromise was effected in between the parties and the writ petition was disposed of by learned Single Judge of this Court on June 11, 1987. The relevant portion of the order passed in this writ petition reads as under:

(3.) IN view of this the auction sale dated October 7, 1975, effected by the Tehsildar, Nalagarh is set aside and orders in connection with the auction sale, Annexure P 3, P 4, P 6, P 8, P 9 and P 11 are also set aside and in the result the auctioned land mentioned in para 3 of the application in CMP No. 455 of 87 would revert to the ownership of the petitioners and mutations are liable to be attested in their favour in this behalf. So far as the land described in para 2 of the C.M.P. is concerned, the petitioners will be entitled to acquire proprietory rights in respect thereof only when they will pay the compensation in respect to this land to respondent No. 3 Narinder Singh as would be assessed by the competent revenue authority but said Narinder Singh would not raise any other objection in this behalf. 3. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner filed application before the LRO, Nalagarh for resumption of 3 acres of land under Section 4 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act from the respondents. The same was dismissed by the LRO on 6.2.1988 and appeals/revisions were also dismissed by the Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). A writ petition No. 630 of 2001 was filed in this Court and the learned Single Judge decided the said writ petition and remanded the matter to the Financial Commissioner to decide the same afresh within a period of 3 months from the date of decision in the said writ petition and the orders passed by the various revenue authorities on 6.2.1988, 30.8.1988, 18.1.1989 and l6.12.2000 were quashed and set aside. 4. The learned Financial Commissioner, vide his impugned order, held that the petitioner's application for resumption was barred by limitation and, therefore, they were not entitled to resume any land from the respondents. The said order passed by the Financial Commissioner has been challenged by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition alleging that the petitioner was entitled to resume 3 acres of unmitigated land under the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and the question of limitation was wrongly decided as against the petitioner and the petitioner was not given the compensation to which he was entitled and, therefore, he was entitled to resumption of land.