CWP No.1358 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.1358 of 2011 Date of decision : 24.1.2011 Roop Chand ........Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present:- Mr.Anil Kumar Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner --- PERMOD KOHLI, J (Oral) : Respondent No.5 filed an application for cancellation of allotment made in favour of the petitioner and respondent No.6 in respect to land measuring 36 kanals 19 marlas situated in Village Patuwas on 16.11.1998 primarily on the ground that he was a Gair Marussi tenant alongwith Roop Chand and Jai Karan (present petitioner and respondent No.6) and by representing wrong facts these two persons wrongly got the allotment in their name. He prayed for the cancellation of allotment and also for the re-allotment of the land in his favour. The petitioner herein, on being served in the matter, objected to the application on variety of grounds including that the application is barred by time and the Prescribed Authority has no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment. The question of limitation was taken up by the Prescribed Authority and vide his order dated 19.11.2008 dismissed the application as barred by time. The relevant observations of the authority are reproduced herein as under - “I have thoroughly heard learned counsel for all the parties and also examined the case file from which I have come to the conclusion that in this case preliminary evidence on the CWP No.1358 of 2011 -2- objections raised by the respondents about application of the applicant to be time barred and on the same evidence arguments have been heard. I agree with the pleading put by the learned counsel for the respondents that the application filed by the applicant is time barred, it does not lie. Hence, the application filed by the application is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced. Case file be consigned to records after due compliance.” Against the aforesaid order of dismissal of application, respondent No.5 herein, filed an appeal before the Collector, Bhiwani, who allowed the appeal vide order dated 8.12.2009 (Annexure P-10) and while setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority remanded the case back to him for decision by a speaking order on merits. Petitioner herein approached the Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar in further appeal against the order of the Collector, Bhiwani. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide his order dated 15.3.2010. Not being satisfied the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The revision petition has also been rejected vide order dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure P-16). Petitioner has challenged the orders of the Collector, Bhiwani (Annexure P-10), that of the Commissioner, Hisar, Division Hisar (Annexure P-13) and of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (Annexure P-16) in this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, the Prescribed Authority has no jurisdiction to decide the question of cancellation of the allotment validly made in favour of the petitioner. His further contention is that the Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner, Hisar decided the appeal in absence of the petitioner. In so far, the question of hearing the petitioner is concerned, it has been recorded by the Commissioner, Hisar that when the case was fixed for hearing on 19.3.2010, the counsel for the appellant did not appear CWP No.1358 of 2011 -3- though later on he sent the written arguments. The written arguments have been duly considered by the Commissioner, Hisar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The Collector, Hisar has set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dismissing the application on limitation. I have carefully gone through the order of the Prescribed Authority reproduced hereinabove. It is evident that the Prescribed Authority dismissed the application on limitation even without recording any valid reason by simply saying that he is agreeing with the respondents. Such order is otherwise not sustainable in law. The Authority i.e. the Commissioner and the Revisional Authority have rightly set aside the order of prescribed authority and remanded the case back to the Prescribed Authority for decision on merits. Main objection of the petitioner in respect to the impugned orders is that the Revisional Authority should have only asked the prescribed authority to re-examine the question of limitation only and not the entire matter. Learned counsel has referred to a judgment of Kerala High Court reported as 'M/s Femina Handloom of India, Can-nanore v. M/s M.R.Verma and Sons, AIR 1993 Kerala 210' wherein while dealing with a civil suit it was held that the preliminary issue regarding the territorial jurisdiction should be decided first. He has further relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Siranja Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 PLJ 432'. In this case the Court rejected a review application on the ground that unless there is a power of review, the same cannot be exercised. These judgments have absolutely no relevance to the issue in question. As far as the question of jurisdiction and limitation is concerned, the Prescribed Authority is required to deal with these questions alongwith other issues for variety of reasons. First of all, it is an old matter and it is not desirable that it should be decided in stages as it is bound to CWP No.1358 of 2011 -4- delay the matter as has happened in the present case. Even when the application was filed in the year 1998 the question of limitation could only be decided in the year 2008 by the Prescribed Authority itself. In view of the above circumstances, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority has rightly remanded the case for decision on merits. Secondly, the question of limitation in such circumstances itself, is a mixed question of law and facts and thus, cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. The Prescribed Authority will accordingly hear the matter on all the issues, however, if the prescribed Authority is of the opinion that he has no jurisdiction, he may decide this issue without deciding the other issues. However, if he has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter then all the issues will be decided in one go. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 24.1.2011 akm