C.W.P. No.3954 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.3954 of 1992 Date of Decision : 02.05.2011 Harinder Pal Singh and others …Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Shalini Attri, D.A.G., Haryana. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) By this petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.04.1991 (Annexure P-5) whereby the benefit of 1-1/5th additional area (given under Section 4 of the Haryana Ceiling on Lands Holdings Act, 1972) in respect of the second wife was reversed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue Department, Haryana. It is not disputed that the petitioners’ father had married two times before 1955. In addition to that he had three sons. By C.W.P. No.3954 of 1992 -2- order dated 30.06.1980 the petitioners’ father was given the benefit of 1-1/5th unit of the permissible area in relation to his second wife and, since the land holding was below the permissible area his case was finalized. In the year 1988, the Full Bench of the Financial Commissioner of Haryana held that the second wife could not get the benefit of an additional unit which is reported in 1989 P.L.J. 105. Thereafter on 07.02.1990 the respondents moved the present application before the Financial Commissioner with the averment that as per the decision of the Full Bench noticed above the benefit of second wife could not be granted to the petitioners. Consequently, the Financial Commissioner after denying the benefit granted to the second wife declared an area of 11 kanals 5 marlas of land as surplus. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the decision of the Full Bench of the Financial Commissioner is wrong and that the benefit granted to the second wife who was legally married (as in the present case) cannot be denied. In my opinion, this argument cannot prevail. In Seth Nand Lal and another v. State of Haryana and others reported in 1980 P.L.J. 470 the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have upheld the artificial definition of family given in the Haryana Ceiling on Lands Holdings Act, 1972. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the question of second wife was not before the Hon’ble Supreme Court C.W.P. No.3954 of 1992 -3- in that case. That may be so but once the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically upheld the artificial definition it would have to be held that the statement of law laid down by the aforementioned Full Bench of the Financial Commissioner is correct. The second argument taken by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order of the prescribed authority was allowed to become final and even in the application filed after 10 years no explanation was given for the delay. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision in the matter of Gram Panchayat Kakran v. Addl. Director of Consolidation and another reported in 1997 (2) PLJ 375, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “Even where no period of limitation is prescribed, the party aggrieved is required to move the appropriate authority for relief within a reasonable time.” Even though that case is related to the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act yet the principle underlying therein would apply to the facts of this case also. Learned counsel for the petitioners has thus argued that the power under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 has not been rightly exercised. Learned Deputy Advocate General has not been able to show any contrary judgment against the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners. C.W.P. No.3954 of 1992 -4- Consequently, even while rejecting the contention with regard to the entitlement of second wife, this writ petition is allowed for the reason that no explanation was forthcoming either in the application or in the reply to the writ petition with regard to the extraordinary delay in filing the said application. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 02, 2011 JUDGE ashish