RAMUN Vs. GAURI SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a letters patent appeal against the judgment of Jaswant Singh J. passed by him in writ petition No. 201 of 1971 filed by Ramun, the appellant. The learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by this Ramun has come up in appeal before this court.

(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal are that the Naib Tehsildar Consolidation Salher prepared for the purpose of consolidation of holdings a statement proposal for allotment of certain plots of land situate in Chak Jagatoo belonging to the appellant and the respondents headed by Gauri Shankar. The Tehsildar Consolidation after hearing objections of the parties concerned disposed of the case against the respondents. On appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation Jammu the order of the Tehsildar Consolidation was modified and the appeal was allowed vide his order dated June 29. 1970. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on July 21, 1970. The respondent also submitted an application in revision against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation to the Financial Commissioner. The revision petition filed by the appellant was called for by the Financial Commissioner vide his letter No. 990/A.P. dated December 22, 1970 addressed to the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). On receipt of the same, he transferred both the revision applications to the files of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) (Shri Ghanysham Sharma). Before Shri Ghanysham Sharma the respondents withdrew their petition, and in regard to the revision filed by the petitioner they raised an objection that the same was time -barred as it had not been presented before the Financial Commissioner as required by law but before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals who could not entertain the revision. It was argued before him that as the Financial Commissioner had assumed jurisdiction in the revision on December 22. 1970 therefore, the revision would be deemed to have been filed before him on this very date and as the revision was filed before an incompetent forum, therefore, time could not be saved and the revision was barred by limitation. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) allowed this objection and dismissed the revision application filed by the appellant on the ground that it was time -barred under section 55 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. of 1962. Thereupon the appellant filed a writ petition in this court which was heard by Jaswant Singh J. It was argued before him that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals was illegal and that the Financial Commissioner had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. It was also urged before him that the record of the revision having been called for from Shri Ghanysham Sharma and having the same subsequently been transferred to the latter the defect, if any in presentation of the revision was cured and the application in revision could not, therefore, be held to be time barred. Also by virtue of section 10 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act 1962 read with section 12 of the Land Revenue Act 1996 all the provisions of the Limitation Act applied to proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act and, therefore, section 5 of the Limitation Act was attracted to the case, and delay, if any, caused should have, therefore, been condoned under that section. This argument was, however, rejected by the learned Judge on the ground that the provisions of the Limitation Act did not apply to proceedings under I he Consolidation of Holdings Act, and even if it be assumed that those provisions were applicable to these proceedings section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be invoked by the appellant to his aid inasmuch as that section applies to appeals and applications as mentioned in the section and not to revision petitions. The learned Judge also ruled out the application of section 14 of the Limitation Act as that section also did not apply to revisions. Further, it was held that the writ petition merited dismissal also as no sufficient cause to condone the delay had been substantiated by the petitioner. No attempt was made by the petitioner to establish that he had filed the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in good faith. The writ petition was subsequently dismissed.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length.