CWP NO. 5647 OF 1981. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5647 of 1981. Date of Decision: 18th December, 2008. Krishan Lal & Ors. ....Petitioners through Dr. Parveen Hans, Advocate for petitioners No. 2 to 4. Versus State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents through Mr. R.D.Sharma, Sr. DAG, Haryana. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Civil Writ Petition seeks quashing of the orders dated 18.7.1961 [Annexure P-2], dated 26.9.1978 [Annexure P-3] and dated 1.10.1981 [Annexure P-5] passed by the Collector, Surplus Area, Hansi, Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, respectively. [2]. The facts giving rise to these proceedings may be summarized as follows. [3]. The first petitioner – Krishan Lal [since dead] and represented by his legal representatives – petitioners No. 2 to 4 was stated to be a big landowner owning 39.43 Standard Acres of land as on 15.4.1953, i.e., the appointed day under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 [for short 'the 1953 Act']. His land measuring 9.33 Standard Acres was declared surplus by the Collector, Surplus CWP NO. 5647 OF 1981. ::-2-:: Area, Hansi vide order dated 18.7.1961 [Annexure P-2]. After about 17 years, Krishan Lal filed an application dated 2.5.1978 seeking review of the afore-stated order dated 18.7.1961. The Collector, Surplus Area, Hansi vide his order dated 26.9.1978 [Annexure P-3] found prima facie substance in the review application and accordingly made a reference to the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar to accord sanction for the review of the order dated 18.7.1961. [4]. The Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar vide his order dated 27.2.1979 [Annexure P-4] disagreed with the recommendations of the Collector and declined the reference. Krishan Lal and his family members then preferred a Revision Petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana which was dismissed vide order dated 1.10.1981 [Annexure P-5] being not maintainable. [5]. Aggrieved, they have approached this Court. [6]. On 17.12.1981, while issuing notice of motion, a Division Bench of this Court stayed the petitioner's dispossession till further orders. The interim stay was made absolute while admitting the writ petition. [7]. On 28.11.1996, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners. The writ petition was, therefore, dismissed in default. After six years and seven months of the dismissal of their writ petition in default, the petitioners moved an application for recalling of the order dated 28.11.1996. A learned Single Judge dismissed the said application on 9.2.2004 being highly belated. The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 6667 of CWP NO. 5647 OF 1981. ::-3-:: 2008 and while accepting the same vide order dated 10.11.2008, their Lordships have allowed the application for restoration and remitted the case for fresh adjudication by this Court, in accordance with law. [8]. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and the impugned orders have been perused. [9]. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that since the petitioners were never served any notice before passing of the order dated 18.7.1961 [Annexure P-2] by the Collector, their review application though filed after about 17 years, was well within limitation, therefore, the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar ought to have accorded sanction for the review of the order dated 18.7.1961 in terms of Section 82[1][a] of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. He then urged that the revision petition was also maintainable before the Financial Commissioner and the same could not have been turned down on the ground of non-maintainability. [10]. On the other hand, learned State Counsel urges that the review application could be maintained within a period of 90 days, whereas in the present case, the same was preferred after about 17 years. He relies upon the stand specifically taken by the respondents in para no. 3 of the counter-affidavit that Krishan Lal [since deceased] was duly served with a notice dated 3.6.1961 by the Collector before passing the order dated 18.7.1961 [Annexure P-2] and he was also served a copy of 'Form 'F' dated 20.7.1961. On this premise, it is argued that the review application being hopelessly time barred, the Commissioner was well within his right to decline the CWP NO. 5647 OF 1981. ::-4-:: reference. [11]. It is indeed not in dispute that the proceedings to declare surplus area were initiated under the 1953 Act. Section 24 thereof reads as under:- “24. Appeal, Review and Revision.- The provision in regard to appeal, review and revision under this Act shall, so far as may be, be the same as provided in Sections 80, 81, 82, 83 of the Punjab ;Tenancy Act, 1887”. [12]. Similarly, Section 82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 reads as under:- “82. Review by Revenue Officer:- [1] A Revenue Officer, as such, may either of own motion or on the application of any party interested, review, and on so reviewing modify, reverse or confirm any order passed by himself or by any of his predecessors in office: Provided as follows:- [a] When a Commissioner or Collector thinks it necessary to review any order which he has not himself passed, and when a Revenue Officer of a class below that of Collector proposes to review any order whether passed by himself or by any of his predecessors in office, he shall first obtain the sanction of the Revenue Officer to whose control he is immediately subject. [b] no application for review of an order shall be entertained unless it is made within ninety days from the passing of the order, or unless the applicant satisfies the Revenue Officer that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within that period; [c] an order shall not be modified or reversed unless reasonable notice has been given to the parties affected thereby to appear and be heard in support of the order; [d] an order against which an appeal has been preferred shall not be reviewed; CWP NO. 5647 OF 1981. ::-5-:: [2] For the purposes of this section the Collector shall be deemed to be the successor in office of any revenue officer of a lower class who has left the district or has ceased to exercise power as a Revenue Officer, and to whom there is no successor in office. [3] An appeal shall not lie from an order refusing to review, or confirming on review, a previous order”. [13]. It may, thus, be noticed that a Review Officer may suo- moto or on an application of the interested party, review his order passed by himself or his predecessor in office. However, if such power of review is being exercised by the Commissioner or the Collector in respect of an order which he has not himself passed, then he is required to obtain the sanction of the Revenue Officer to whose control he is immediately subject. Further, no review application shall be ordinarily entertained unless it is made within 90 days from the passing of the order unless the applicant satisfies the Revenue Officer that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within that period. [14]. The review application moved by the petitioners was, therefore, required to be dealt within the parameters and limitations specified in Section 82 of 1887 Act read with Section 24 of 1953 Act. Those parameters have been, prima facie, over-looked firstly by the Collector, Surplus Area, Hansi while passing the order dated 26.9.1978 [Annexure P-3] in favour of the petitioners as no finding whatsoever has been returned by him as to how the review application could be entertained after a period of about 17 years when the Act postulates maintainability of such an application within 90 days only. The Collector ought to have framed a specific issue CWP NO. 5647 OF 1981. ::-6-:: and then arrive at a conclusion that the review application was within limitation from the date of knowledge. No such finding has been returned by him. Similarly, the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar also did not lag behind in passing yet another patently illegal order dated 27.2.1979 [Annexure P-4] when he declined the reference sent by the Collector, Surplus Area, Hansi. As the 1953 and 1887 Acts have expressly provided the power of review, the Reviewing Authority is obligated to exercise that power in a quasi-judicial manner which inheres assignment of reasons in support of its conclusions. Contrary to it, the order dated 27.2.1979 [Annexure P-4] reads as follows:- “With reference to your letter No. 355 SDHSA dated 12.10.78 on the subject cited above vide which your reference dated 26.9.78 has been received along with Surplus File No.1922-S.A. Decided on 14.7.61. While disagreeing with your recommendations dated 26.9.78 the review of the order of the Surplus Area Hisar dated 18.7.61 is not granted”. Least to say, it is totally cryptic and laconic and gives no reasons whatsoever to disagree with the recommendations made by the Collector, Surplus Area, Hansi. [15]. Having arrived at the above-stated conclusion, in my considered view, there is no necessity to go into the legality of the order dated 1.10.1981 [Annexure P-5] passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. If the orders passed in favour and against the petitioners [Annexures P-3 and P-4] can not sustain, the order [Annexure P-5] being in sequel thereto, is bound to go. [16]. For the reasons afore-stated, the orders dated 26.9.1978 CWP NO. 5647 OF 1981. ::-7-:: [Annexure P-3] passed by the Collector, Surplus Area, Hansi, as well as dated 27.2.1979 [Annexure P-4] passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar are hereby set aside. As a necessary corollary, the order dated 1.10.1981 [Annexure P-5] passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana also must go and the same is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the Collector, Surplus Area, Hansi to decide the review application dated 2.5.1978 afresh and in accordance with law. The Collector, Surplus Area shall frame specific issues regarding [i] the delay in filing of the review application and [ii] maintainability of the review application, before he proceeds to entertain the review application on merits. [17]. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Surplus Area, Hansi on 11.3.2008. [18]. Disposed of. December 18, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE