Subhash Chander and Others vs Commissioner, Ferozepur Division and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 12.05.1993 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 1 - Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, according permission to review the order dated 18.07.1984 (Annexure P-1) passed by Special Collector, Agrarian, Fazilka. Brief facts of the case are that surplus area case of Raghbir Singh son of Shri Sultan Ram, resident of village Bhagsar, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur, was decided as per order dated 05.12.1963 passed by the Collector Agrarian, Fazilka. The area measuring 13 SA 4 units vested in the surplus pool. Subsequently, action under Section 9(1) and 9(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 was taken during the life time of landowner, Shri Raghbir Singh and surplus area was mutated in favour of the Punjab Government. Subsequently, Special Collector Agrarian made a reference to the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, pointing out that after the death of Raghbir Singh, his heirs could not have been given benefit of the area that was declared surplus and which also vested in the State Government but the benefit has been given to the heirs of Raghbir Singh, which is contrary to the provisions of law and as such, the order of Special Collector Agrarian dated 18.07.1984 needed to be reviewed. As per narration in the reference, Smt. Vidya Devi wd/o Raghbir Singh owned 38 SA 121/4 units of land whereas as per order dated 18.07.1984 she was shown as owning 25 SAs 121/4 units only, which is wrong. In this way, an area measuring 16 SA 3/4 units deserved to be included in the surplus pool, which was not done. Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, accorded permission to review the order dated 18.07.1984 (Annexure P-1) passed by Special Collector, Agrarian, Fazilka. Hence, this writ petition.

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

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. Learned State counsel failed to satisfy this Court as to how the review can be filed after more than nine years without giving cogent reasons explaining the delay in filing the review. Although, there is no limitation prescribed under Section 82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 for review or taking suo motu action, but it was 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 also 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 of this Court 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 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 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 nine years specially when the order was reviewed and direction was issued to reconsider the case of surplus area afresh. It is basic principle of natural justice and also principles of law that when valuable right of a person is likely to be affected then he must be given due adequate opportunity to defend his case. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 12.05.1993 (Annexure P-3) 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 nine years. The Commissioner shall pass a speaking order after hearing the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 01.09.2014.

Writ petition is disposed of in the above said terms.