AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. M. Jain, J.
In the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.12.1998, Annexure P8 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana vide which the Financial Commissioner has dismissed the revision petition under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the petitioners have filed the said revision petition before him after lapse of several years without giving any reason for not availing the remedies of filing appeal/revision before the Collector/Commissioner.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the record, we find no ground to interfere with the order dated 22.12.1998, Annexure P8 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. While dismissing the petition, the learned Financial Commissioner, observed that the petitioners did not bother to file any appeal/revision before the Collector/Commissioner against the order dated 16.5.1985 etc. and without exhausting that channel they filed the present revision petition and that too in 1993. Furthermore. the Financial Commissioner while dismissing the revision petition also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case Loku Ram v. State of Haryana and others, 1999(1) PLJ 1 : 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 141 (SC). Relying on the said judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the Financial Commissioner held that he was not inclined to exercise the suo motu powers as provided under Section 18(6) of the Act in the present case, considering that the revision petition has been filed after several years and further considering that the petitioners have not availed the remedies of filing appeal/revision before the Collector/Commissioner. In Loku Ram''s case (supra) it was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court as under
"4. Section 18(6) of the Act reads thus :
"Section 18(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub sections, the Financial Commissioner may suo motu at any time call for the record of and proceedings or order of any authority subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or order, and may pass such order in relation thereto as he may deem it."
No doubt, the section uses the expression ''at any time'' but it cannot be indefinite. The power has to be exercised within a reasonable time while construing the expression ''at any time'', this Court in State of Gujarat v. P. Raghav, AIR 1969 SC 1297, has stated the law thus :
"11. The question arises whether the Commissioner can revise an order made under Section 65 at any time. It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211, but it seems to us plain that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised."
Section 18(2) of the Act prescribes a period of 15 days for filing an appeal and Section 18(4) prescribes a period of 30 days for filing a revision before the Commissioner. When the two subsections prescribe a very short period of 15 and 30 days respectively, it will be unreasonable to hold that the Financial Commissioner has unlimited power to entertain a revision after a lapse of several years.
The test prescribed by this Court in Raghav''s case has been ignored by the Financial Commissioner in the present case. His order does not disclose any reason to hold that a period of nearly seven years is reasonable on the facts of the case. Nor has the High Court gone into the question and decided whether the power has been exercised on the facts and circumstances within a reasonable period. Hence we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. The order of the Financial Commissioner is also set aside. The order of the Collector dated 18.6.82 is restored. No costs."
In view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Loku Ram''s case (supra), it would be clear that the Financial Commissioner had rightly dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners. This would be especially so when the petitioners had failed to give any reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. As referred to above, it was only after more than 8 years (order of the Collector is dated 16.5.1985 while the revision petition was filed before the Financial Commissioner on 21.10.1993) that the petitioners filed the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. In the absence of any reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the revision petition, in our opinion, the Financial Commissioner had rightly declined to interfere in the revision petition especially when the revision petition was filed after more than 8 years of the order passed by the Collector.
In view of the above, finding no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissed in limine.