Jattu Ram and Others vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals) and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This writ petition is filed challenging the orders of the Collector, Fazilka dated 29.10.1979 and the order of Additional Commissioner, Ferozepore, dated 30.4.1981 holding that the appeal filed by the petitioners against the orders of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Fazilka was barred by time.

The Additional Collector passed an order on application for partition of land u/s 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act on 28.9.1977. The Petitioner filed an application for the copies of the order and decree on 7.10.1977. Even before receiving the copy of the order he filed an appeal on 2.1.1978. After filing before the Collector, Fazilka, subsequently filed another appeal though he obtained the certified copy on 21.1.1978. According to the Collector, the filing of the copy on 25.5.1978 was beyond the period prescribed for filing the appeal namely 30 days from the date of order and ever if the time taken for obtaining the copy was excluded it was beyond time and, therefore, the appeal was barred by time. The said order was confirmed in revision by the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur Division. The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by the said orders.

There is no dispute that the order was passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 20.9.1977 and that an application for obtaining the copy of the same was made on 7.10.1977 but even before the obtaining the copy of the order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 2.1.1978. Thereafter on 25.5.1978 he filed the certified copy of the order against which the appeal was filed.

The question for determination in this writ petition is whether the appeal filed by the petitioner is whether the appeal filed by the petitioner was within time. There is no dispute that the period prescribed for filing the appeal is 30 days. The crucial date to be taken into account is one 2.1.1978 when the appeal was filed or 25.5.1978 when the copy of the order of Assistant Collector 1st Grade was filed before the Collector. On 2.1.1978, admittedly, the appeal was barred by time. There is no provision of law which has been brought to my notice that the pendency of an application for obtaining the copy will save the time if the appeal is filed during the pendency of the copy of the application. Therefore, the appeal filed on 2.1.1978 cannot be said to be within limitation. Had the petitioner filed the copy of the order within 30 days of excluding the time taken for obtaining the copy on Court then it can be said that the defective appeal was carved and it was brought within limitation. But admittedly, the copy of the order was filed on 25.5.1978. On that day, the appeal was barred by time even after excluding the time taken for obtaining the certified copy. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the fact of his filing appeal when the copy of application was pending. Either he has to show that the appeal filed on 2.1.1978 was within time or the appeal was not barred by time on 25.5.1978 when he filed the copy of the order before the Appellate Authority. In either case, the appeal was filed beyond 30 days either with the Appellate Authority and the Original Authority the appeal was barred by time. In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground warranting interference with the orders of the Appellate Authority and Divisional Authority. The appeal therefore fails and accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.