C.W.P No. 1767 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 1767 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision : November 22, 2010 Makhan Singh, ...... Petitioner v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue and others, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. S.N.Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 9.9.1985 and 10.12.1985, Annexures P-5 and P-7 respectively, rejecting the application of the petitioner for further allotment of 0-15.3/4 standard acres of land on the ground that there was deficiency in the land allotted to him. Originally, the petitioner who is a migrant from West Pakisthan was allotted 32-10 standard acres of land. Lateron, it was discovered that this allotment was excess and consequently, 16-4.1/4 standard acres of land C.W.P No. 1767 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: was cancelled in the year 1950. In the year 1981, i.e after 31 years, the petitioner moved the instant application stating that due to illiteracy, he did not realize earlier that there was a clerical mistake in the calculation of the area and, thus, the same be re-calculated and the deficiency made up. Originally, the deficiency was ordered to be made up by the Managing Officer. However, in a suo motu reference, the Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelled it. The revision filed by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed and that is how the matter is before this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the cancellation has been made under rule 67A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (for short “the Rules”) but the said rule has no application. That may be so. However, it cannot be lost sight of that the petitioner kept quiet for 31 long years. To this, counsel for the petitioner has argued that Section 25(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 specifically provides that an arithmetical mistake can be corrected at any time. In my opinion, the words `any time' cannot be literally construed and the period of 31 years taken by the petitioner for just agitating his claim is excessive. Even if while rejecting the application rule 67-A of the Rules has been wrongly invoked, yet the fact remains that the petitioner moved the application after excessive delay, viz 31 years. Consequently, finding no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) C.W.P No. 1767 of 1987 (O&M) ::3:: November 22, 2010. JUDGE `kk'