CWP No. 4419 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4419 of 2003 Date of decision: 27.2.2008 Hari Ram ...Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.GAREWAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. RS Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. NS Virk, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. PN Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent 3. K.S.GAREWAL, J. This petition was filed by Hari Ram on March 22, 2003 to challenge the order of the Financial Commissioner dated November 3, 1998. The background of this case is that the Collector Agrarian, had on February 24, 1973 allotted 40 kanals of land to Kanshi Ram (represented by legal heirs) since the land had been declared surplus in the hands of the petitioner's predecessors-in-interest. The petitioner alleges that Kanshi Ram had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Punjab CWP No. 4419 of 2003 2 Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme 1973 and when this fact came to the notice of the Collector (Agrarian), it was held that the possession of the property had never been delivered to respondent 3. This led to the cancellation of the allotment to the extent of 9 kanals 8 marlas on February 22, 1994. This order was challenged by respondent 3 before the Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the order was challenged before the Financial Commissioner. The impugned order of the Financial Commissioner reveals that possession of the land had been delivered to Kanshi Ram on May 9, 1973. Thereafter on January 27, 1983, Collector Agrarian had assessed the price of the land at Rs. 7081.90 to be paid in half yearly installments of Rs. 500/-. Full amount was paid, the last installment being paid on June 17, 1988. Kanshi Ram was found to be in continued possession from May 9, 1973. He later became the absolute owner through mutation 2701. The Financial Commissioner found fault with the order of the Collector as the Collector had placed reliance on nehri girdawari ignoring the revenue record and cancelled the allotment in respect of 9 kanals 8 marlas on the ground that Kanshi Ram was not in possession thereof. The Financial Commissioner categorically held that the Collector was not competent to cast aside the presumption in favour of the validity of the allotment order and subsequent proceedings. Petition was accepted and the orders of the learned revenue courts were set aside on November 13, 1998. It took the petitioner over 4-1/2 years to challenge the Financial Commissioner's order through the present petition. The petitioner's argument is that the possession of the surplus land has not been taken, CWP No. 4419 of 2003 3 therefore, it did not vest in the State government and could not be allotted to the respondent. We have gone through the record of the case and find that the petitioner had been divested of the possession and thereafter mutation had also been sanctioned in favour of Kanshi Ram. If the petitioner had been dispossessed of the possession, the land came into possession of the State government was was validly allotted to respondent 3. The petitioner has no legally sustainable case to challenge the allotment. Indeed the petitioner filed the present petition after 4-1/2 years of the order of the Financial Commissioner. This fact itself would be a ground to dismiss the petition. It may be noticed that the petitioner had on March 24, 2003 got the petition listed with CWP 108 of 2003 and also secured an interim order in same terms. The present case has nothing to do with the controversy in CWP 108 of 2003, therefore, it is not understandable how the petitioner managed to get the present petition listed alongwith CWP 108 of 2003. There is no merits in this petition. Dismissed. (K.S. GAREWAL) JUDGE 27.2.2008 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) prem JUDGE