CWP No. 16569 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16569 of 1990 Date of decision May 31, 2011 Kali Ram and others ....... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S. S. Goripuria , DAG., Haryana **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?Yes K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The only point that is seriously pressed before this Court is that the Revisional Authority, namely the Financial Commissioner exercised suo motu powers to reopen the issue regarding fixation of permissible area under Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act beyond the period of six years after a decision had been taken by the prescribed authority holding that the original land owners holding was not attracted to the provisions of the Act. 2. The bare facts that would be necessary would be that the extent of 149 Kanals 1 Marla of land had been treated as surplus in the hands of the original land owner Jee Ram on 4.6.1995. Jee Ram died CWP No. 16569 of 1990 2 on 5.4.1974 and his legal representatives sought through inheritance a claim to one unit in addition to the total holding permissible for the family. An order was passed under Annexure P-3 on 31.8.1983 registering the fact that the holding already declared as surplus had not been utilized and hence the extent of holding was to be reckoned again when each of the sons obtained a right of inheritance on his own entitlement and consequently, the surplus declared already was liable to be reassessed and holdings found to be within permissible area. This order which was passed by the prescribed authority on 31.1.1983 was reopened suo motu by the Financial Commissioner in the year 1989 and passed order in the year 1990 finding that the death of Jee Ram was subsequent to the appointed date 21.4.1971 and the holding of the family was to be reckoned only on the appointed date as per Section 12 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 that vested the surplus area on the State Government. Evidently the Financial Commissioner found fault on the wrong assumption made by the prescribed authority that in case where the property was not utilized, vesting itself will not take place. 3. Learned counsel places reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Loku Ram Vs. State of Haryana 1999 (1) PLJ 1 that held that the power of revision under Section 18 (6) cannot be an indefinite period and reasons must be disclosed for reviewing a closed matter on the facts of each case. The Supreme Court held that it would be unreasonable to hold that the Financial Commissioner had unlimited power to entertain the revision after a lapse of 7 years. This judgment was subsequently followed and applied by a Division Bench in Diwan Hira Lal Kapoor Vs. State of Haryana 2002 (4) RCR (Civil) 28 that a revision filed before the Financial Commissioner after more than 8 years without giving reasons for not availing remedies for appeal or revision before the Collector was not justified. Learned counsel also refers me to a general proposition CWP No. 16569 of 1990 3 of law in the matter of re-opening issues after a long period of time in Devinder Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2006 SC 2850. 4. The Supreme Court rulings must be understood in the context of how the authorities that exercise the power do not abuse the same and take decisions which can cause very serious prejudice in situations say where parties have parted the possession and third party interests have also intervened. It will be difficult to lay down as a rule of thumb as to what would be the reasonable time for an authority to review orders. I would assume that the unreasonable time would be when third party interest have intervened or the land owner himself has dealt with property or used the property under the bona fide belief that provisions of the Act are not applicable on the basis of the decision already taken. If the land owner himself seeks to assail the order on the only ground that there was a delay in reappreciation without showing any further prejudice, I cannot accommodate the plea and apply the decision in Loku Ram's case (supra). The proposition that the authority exercises its jurisdiction within reasonable time is well taken, but I will not find the delay that has occasioned has caused any particular prejudice except that in the ultimate bargain, the party loses a property if his holding is found to be in excess of the ceiling limit. The prejudice that must be shown shall be dehors the correct application of the provision relating to the property, for, otherwise, it would mean offering a basic premium to hold in excess of the ceiling area. The Land Reforms Act has a different social purpose to prevail. The right to property itself is not any longer a fundamental right and if there is a law which provides for treating a particular holding as surplus by giving effect to the constitutional purpose of securing equitable distribution of property, the interpretation that will subserve the object of the Act will have to be taken. Loku Ram's case (supra) cannot be viewed with blinkers. The case must be understood as applicable in a particular situation where the Court CWP No. 16569 of 1990 4 held that delay to be unreasonable and there is a serious prejudice caused. In this case if the dispensation has come about to the benefit of the legal heirs by an interpretation which was wrong and violative to Section 12 of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 it was only imperative that the wrong order was corrected by the revisional authority. The power of revision is after all intended to correct serious error by the supervisory jurisdiction of the higher authority and I will certainly accord to the authority such a power to correct the patent error that had come about through the order dated 31.1.983. The impugned order is upheld and the plea of laches as a ground for sustaining the writ petition is rejected. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 31, 2011 archana