Rakhu alias Ram Rakha vs State of Punjab

B.B. Mahajan, F.C.

This revision petition under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 read with Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, is directed against the order dated the 9th September, 1983, of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, vide which he dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Collector Agrarian, Anandpur Sahib, declared 13 Standard Acres of land as surplus with Ram Lal son of Ghaniya, resident of village Bela Dhiani under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The separation of the surplus area from the reserved area of landowner after consolidation of holdings was decided by the Collector vide his order dated the 25th September, 1970. It had been directed that the old tenants should apply to the Collector, Anandpur Sahib for getting proprietary rights. The petitioner did not apply for getting proprietary rights within the prescribed limit, but filed an application dated the 3rd November, 1976, for change of surplus area of Ram Lal landowner. In the meantime proceedings were also initiated against the landowner under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 and the Collector Agrarian, Anandpur Sahib, vide his order dated the 25th June, 1976, declared the landowner as a small landowner. The landowner sold his land which was under the cultivation of the present petitioner, to Ajaib Singh and Kalyan Singh sons of Santa Singh on the 17th May, 1979. The Collector Agrarian, rejected the application of the petitioner, vide his order dated the 31st December, 1981. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner went in revision before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, who, after considering the arguments led on behalf of the parties and perusing the records, dismissed the revision petition, vide his order dated the 29th September, 1983 which order has now been impugned before me.

The revision petition had originally been filed only against the State of Punjab. Subsequently Ajaib Singh and Kalyan Singh sons of Santa Singh who were also respondents before the Commissioner filed an application on the 12th March, 1984, for their being impleaded as respondents. The application was allowed vide my order dated the 16th April, 1984. It was mentioned in my order dated 19th March, 1984, that proper parties do no appear to have been impleaded in the petition and the case was fixed for arguments on this point on the 30th April, 1984. The counsel for the petitioner subsequently submitted an application on the 30th July, 1984, for impleading as respondents in this petition the private persons except Ajaib Singh and Kalyan Singh who had already been impleaded. Sarvshri Ajaib Singh and Kalyan Singh who had been added as respondents have filed their reply to this application.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for respondents Nos 2 and 3. The counsel for the respondents Nos 2 and 3 has referred me to the judgment of the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bakhtawar Singh and others v. Vidya Parkash Sood and others, reported in 1982 R.L.R page 204 in which it was held that where names of two plaintiffs in whose favour decree was passed along with the plaintiffs shown in the decree sheet of the lower appellate Court, yet they were not impleaded as parties to the second appeal filed in the High Court, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground. He has pointed out that the names of 11 respondents were mentioned in the impugned order of the Commissioner but the petitioner had omitted to implead any of them except the State of Punjab. The application was made by Ajaib Singh and Kalyan Singh respondents themselves for impleading them as respondent. An application for impleading other respondents has been filed only on the 30th July, 1984, long after the period prescribed for filing revision petition against the Commissioner''s order dated the 29th September, 1983, had expired.

The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the ruling cited by the counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was not to apply to the present case as it applied only to second appeals and not to a revision. This contention does not have much weight. The principle enunciated in the ruling of the High Court would obviously apply to a revision petition as well. The counsel for the petitioner has thereafter argued that no period for filing the revision before the Financial Commissioner is prescribed in the Punjab Tenancy Act and the petition cannot, therefore, be dismissed on the ground that application for impleading the remaining respondents was made after expiry of the so called period of limitation. This view is also not tenable. As was held by my learned predecessor Shri Hardev Singh Chinna, Financial Commissioner, Punjab, in Jagrup Singh v. Sadhu Singh, reported in 1975 PLJ page 260 it is now well settled and recognised practice obtaining in the Court of the Financial Commissioner that although no period of limitation is expressly prescribed for preferring a revision petition, yet the Financial Commissioner would refuse to entertain a revision petition after 90 days, the period assigned for an appeal, unless some plausible and satisfactory cause of delay is shown to his satisfaction. In this case, the names of the respondents were clearly mentioned in the copy of the order of the Commissioner enclosed with the revision petition. The counsel for the petitioner had noticed at least on the 16th April, 1984, when application of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for being impleaded as respondents was accepted that other respondents also needed to be impleaded. He submitted the application for impleading the remaining respondents only on the 30th July, 1984. No explanation has been given either in the application or during arguments for this inordinate delay in filing the application. Since necessary parties to the revision had not been impleaded within the time allowed for revision, the petition is dismissed..