C.W.P. No.9126 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.9126 of 1992 Date of Decision : 24.05.2011 Chetan Dass …Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, D.A.G., Haryana. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed challenging the order of the Financial Commissioner whereby certain land was exempted from being declared surplus and consequently was declared surplus. The prescribed authority had exempted the following transactions:- i) Sale of land measuring 9 kanals 3 marlas vide sale deed dated 19.07.1971. ii) Wife of the petitioner sold 102 kanals 13 marlas vide sale deed dated 5.5.1972. C.W.P. No.9126 of 1992 -2- It had also allowed the plea that the son of the petitioner was major on 24.01.1971 (the appointed date) and thus exempted 142 kanals 15 marlas of land which had been obtained by one son vide Civil Court decree dated 17.05.1972. Learned Financial Commissioner held that these transfers were not exempted under Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act by placing reliance on the judgment in the matter of Brijinder Singh v. State of U.P. reported in A.I.R. 1981 SC 636. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Financial Commissioner exercised suo motu powers after 4 years and this would not be permissible. In Smt. Jaswant Kaur and another v. The State of Haryana and another reported in AIR 1977 Punjab and Haryana 221(1) the Full Bench of this Court in para No.8 has held as follows:- “8……….A harmonious way of construing Ss.8 and 12(3) would be to give full effect to S.8(1) unto 23-12-1972, that is to say, to exclude from the operation of Section 12(3), the transfers made up to 23-12-1972 which are protected by S. 8(1) of the Act, namely, (1) acquisition of land by the State or Central Government, (2) acquisition by a tenant under the Pepsu Law or the Punjab Law, or (3) acquisition by an heir by inheritance. Other transfers of land in excess of permissible area under the Punjab Law or the Pepsu Law would be protected if the transfers were made C.W.P. No.9126 of 1992 -3- prior to 30-07-1958.” In this view of the matter no fault can be found with the judgment of the Financial Commissioner on merits since none of the transfers was effected by the petitioner after the appointed date or within the ambit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Full Bench. As regards the argument relating to the time lag of 4 years in the exercising of suo motu powers, suffice it to say that a palpable illegality cannot be continued and if it has been set aside by an order which may suffer from procedural irregularity the illegality cannot be perpetuated. Resultantly this writ petition is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 24, 2011 JUDGE ashish