CWP No.20983 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20983 of 2008 Date of decision:30.09.2010 Davinder Singh ..... Petitioner Versus Raghukul Bhushan and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.S.S.Khaira, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.2 to 4. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 06.05.2008 and 20.10.2004, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab and the Commissioner (Appeals) Patiala Division, Patiala. The petitioner was appointed as the Lambardar by the Collector. However, his appointment was set aside by the Commissioner. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner after a delay of 600 days. The revision was rejected on the ground of delay. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for condonation of delay, contains averments explaining the delay but these averments were ignored by the Financial Commissioner. It is submitted that as the petitioner was appointed by the Collector, and the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for the delay, the revision should have been decided on merits. Counsel for the private respondent submits that the revision was CWP No.20983 of 2008 -2- rightly dismissed as no clear and cogent explanation was forthcoming for the delay of 600 days. It is further submitted that the petitioner's appointment on the basis of a hereditary claim is null and void and therefore, his revision was to be even otherwise, dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The petitioner was appointed as the Lambardar on the basis of his military service and his hereditary claim. The Commissioner set aside this order. The petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed as there was a delay of 600 days, in approaching the Financial Commissioner. Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, does not prescribe a period of limitation for invoking the jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner. A revision, invoking the jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner must therefore be filed within “reasonable time”. The expression “reasonable time” varies from case to case. What may be “reasonable time” for one set of facts need not necessarily be so for another set of facts. The absence of a period of limitation however does not absolve a party from offering a “reasonable” explanation for delay. The power to entertain belated claims depends on the nature of the dispute and the explanation offered for the delay. The application filed by the petitioner reveals that the petitioner engaged the services of a counsel in the month of January, paid his fee and handed over the brief for filing a revision. The counsel however, passed away and his family shifted to their native place. The petitioner could not locate the brief or the papers and thereafter obtained relevant documents with great difficulty and filed the revision. The explanation, in my considered opinion, is clear, cogent and bonafide. The demise of the CWP No.20983 of 2008 -3- petitioner's counsel and shifting of the counsel's family to their native place, was beyond the control of the petitioner, but was neither considered nor adverted to by the Financial Commissioner. On merits, the petitioner was appointed as the Lambardar by the Collector but his appointment was set aside by the Commissioner. The petitioner is an ex-serviceman entitled to preference as per the rules. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 06.05.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, to decide the revision on merits, after giving adequate opportunity to all parties concerned to raise their pleas in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, on 10.11.2010. 30.09.2010 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE