Shanti Devi vs Commissioner, Ferozepur Division and Others

Parmjeet Singh, J.—Instant civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 07.08.1991 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent No. 1 - Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, according permission to review the order dated 03.02.1986 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Collector (Agrarian), Abohar. Brief facts of the case are that Sheo Karan, father of the petitioner, was a big landowner within the meaning of Punjab Land Reforms Act. During the pendency of surplus proceedings, he died. The Collector ordered the filing of the case and directed that the land in the hands of legal heirs of Sheo Koran i.e. the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 be reconsidered afresh. Fresh report was submitted. The Collector vide order dated 13.03.1980 (Annexure P/1) allowed to each of three legal heirs of Sheo Karan permissible area and concluded the surplus area proceedings. While passing order dated 13.03.1980 (Annexure P/1), Collector (Agrarian) took into consideration the total holding of each legal heir and had also verified regarding the opening of the inheritance of Sheo Karan. The successor in office of the Collector (Agrarian) Abohar, in the year 1985, sought permission from respondent No. 1 for reviewing the order dated 13.03.1980 (Annexure P/1). Respondent No. 1, vide order dated 01.09.1985 accorded the permission to review the order (Annexure P/1). After the grant of permission, the Collector (Agrarian), called for the records, took fresh evidence and vide order dated 03.02.1986 (Annexure P/2) affirmed the order under review holding that each legal heir was entitled to a permissible area of 7 hectares. At that point of time, the Collector had taken into consideration the calculation submitted by the revenue agency representing the State and the area in the hands of tenant was also taken as tenant''s permissible area. The order dated 03.02.1986 (Annexure P/2) became final as they were passed in the presence of the State representative. After a lapse of more than four years of passing the order dated 03.02.1986 (Annexure P/2), the Special Collector (Agrarian), Fazilka, in the year 1989, made a reference again to the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur for permission to review the order dated 03.02.1986 and 13.03.1980 on the ground that benefit of permissible area of 7 hectares was given to the petitioner wrongly whereas she was not entitled to the same. The Commissioner vide order dated 07.08.1991 (Annexure P/3) granted permission to review the proceedings afresh for determination of the surplus area in the hands of the petitioner. The said action of the Collector and the Commissioner has been impugned in the present writ petition on the ground that the impugned order is bad in law specifically that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and the order is ex parte, secondly, multiple reviews are not permitted specially when the State is a party to earlier proceedings, thirdly although there is no limitation prescribed for review of the orders even then the reasonable period is required to be taken for the purposes of limitation.

Notice of motion was issued. The respondent-State filed written statement through Special Collector (Agrarian), Ferozepur and admitted that Sheo Karan, father of the petitioner, had died during the pendency of the surplus proceedings. The property has come into the hands of the legal heirs. The State has also admitted about the earlier orders and the review order passed by the competent authorities. It has been submitted that the petitioner was duly served through munadi and hence, the impugned orders are legal and valid.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The facts are not in dispute that the proceedings were initiated during the life time of Sheo Karan. During the pendency of the surplus proceedings, he died and his succession opened. Thereafter, the Collector filed the case of Sheo Karan and directed that the land in the hands of legal heirs of Sheo Karan i.e. the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 be reconsidered afresh. In pursuance of that the permissible area of the heirs of Sheo Karan was determined and the surplus proceedings concluded on 13.03.1980. Thereafter, review was ordered vide order dated 01.09.1985 by the Commissioner. Again the matter was considered afresh and the Collector after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, affirmed the earlier order vide order dated 03.02.1986. Admittedly, in the present case, the matter has a chequered history. Thrice the proceedings have been taken up for considering the surplus area case in the hands of Sheo Karan and on his death in the hands of his legal heirs. Earlier also the review was sought which was allowed. Thereafter, vide impugned order the surplus area case was determined.

In the light of the above facts, it is crystal clear that State in spite of being party was not satisfied with the orders of its own officers, one after the other review applications have been filed and have been allowed twice. This Court is of the definite view that so far as the order dated 13.03.1980 is concerned that order was already set aside vide order dated 01.09.1985 and the review application of the State was allowed, hence the order for reviewing the order dated 13.03.1980 is null, void and without jurisdiction. It is not the case of the authorities that they were asking the Commissioner to review the order dated 01.09.1985, for reviewing that order, only the higher authority is competent. So far as the order dated 03.02.1986 is concerned, in this regard it would be appropriate to mention that this order has been passed in the absence of the petitioner and is an ex parte order. The State counsel has failed to show from the record that at any point of time, personal service was effected upon the petitioner and munadi was validly carried out at the place where the petitioner was residing. Learned State counsel also failed to satisfy this Court as to how the review can be filed after more than four years without giving cogent reasons explaining the delay in filing the review. Although, there is no limitation prescribed u/s 82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 for review or taking suo motu action, but it is to be within a reasonable period. Hon''ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 in Loku Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Others has considered and explained the words "at any time". In this regard, reference can be made to judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court in The State of Gujarat Vs. Patil Raghav Natha and Others, Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Collie Sangham Vs. K. Suresh Reddy and Others, and Shri Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and Others Vs. Shri Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Others, . This Court has also taken an identical view in the case of Chandgi Ram v. State of Haryana and others, C.W.P. No. 895 of 1991, decided on 08.07.2013 that reasonable period must be there so that there may be finality to the proceedings. While interpreting the provisions of Section 82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, the learned Single Judge in the case of Harnek Singh v. The Commissioner, Jullundur Division and others, 1967 P.L.J., 140 has also considered that although reasonable time limit cannot be defined in with any precision, but it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

In view of the catena of judgments, it is settled principle of law that where there is no period of limitation is prescribed, a reasonable period is required to be considered for that purpose as endless period of limitation defeats the very purpose of law seeking to put an end to the litigation.

In view of the above, this Court is of the definite view that the Commissioner has not given any cogent reasons for entertaining the review after four years specially when the order was reviewed and direction was issued to reconsider the case of surplus area afresh. Secondly, the State has failed to satisfy that there was a valid and proper service upon the petitioner. The proceedings against the petitioner are in his absence. It is basic requirement of natural principles of law that when valuable right of a person is likely to be affected then he must be given due opportunity to defend his case. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is set aside. The Commissioner is directed to pass a fresh order and record specific findings with regard to legality of entertaining review after delay of more than four years. The Commissioner shall pass a speaking order after hearing the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 12.08.2013.

Writ petition is disposed of in the above said terms.