Bua Lal vs State of Punjab and another

B. B. Mahajan, F.C.

This is a revision petition under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 against the order of the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur dated 20.9.1983 vide which he declined permission to the Collector (Agrarian) Pathankot for review of the order of the then Collector (Agrarian) Pathankot dated 11.11.1975.

The brief facts of the case are that the Collector (Agrarian), Pathankot vide his letter No. 50/Kgo., dated 29.4.1981 requested the Commissioner for granting permission for review of the order of the then Collector (Agrarian), Pathankot dated 11.11.1975. The main ground mentioned was that the land had wrongly been calculated and as land of the 1st quality yielding two crops in a year whereas the land was irrigated for six months only and was capable of yielding one crop in a year. After hearing the parties and going through the record, the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur, vide his order dated 20.9.1983 declined the permission sought for by the Collector (Agrarian), Pathankot. This order has been challenged by the petitioner before the F.C.T. and the case has been transferred to the file of this Court vide order of the F.C.T., dated 29.3.1984 on the assertion of the counsel for the petitioner that a number of similar cases in which similar questions of law and facts are involved are under consideration in my Court.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. The Commissioner had declined permission for review on two grounds. Firstly, the application for review had been filed more than 4 years after the passing of the order dated 11.11.1975 and no application for condonation of delay beyond the period of thirty days allowed under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 read with Section 82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 was filed. Secondly, the revision petition against the order dated 11.11.1975 sought to be reviewed had been rejected by Financial Commissioner, Revenue, on 19.7.1979. The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to controvert either the factual position in respect of either of these grounds or to show any authority according to which the decision of the Commissioner on either of these points may be illegal or even incorrect. Section 82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act clearly lays down that an application for review of an order shall not be entertained unless it is made within thirty days from the passing of the order unless the applicant satisfies the Revenue Officer that he has sufficient cause for not making the application within that period. No sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for the inordinate delay in filing of the review application. The fact that in a similar case a decision favourable to the petitioner had been announced is not in itself a sufficient cause for entertaining a review application after a lapse of more than four years. Further, the Commissioner has rightly held that the review of order dated 11.11.1975 by the Collector could not be permitted as a revision petition against the same had already been rejected by the Financial Commissioner. Proviso (d) to Section 82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act lays down that an order against which an appeal has been preferred shall not be reviewed. The same principle will obviously apply in regard to an order against which a revision had been preferred. Once a revision petition against an order has been filed and rejected application for review of that order, particularly by a person who had filed the revision petition, will not be competent. Review, if at all justified and permissible, will have to be sought of the order of the Financial Commissioner in the revision petition. No illegality has thus been committed by the impugned order of the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur, which may warrant interference in revision. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

Announced.