MEGHI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Meghi Singh owned land in two villages Maseetan and Gobindgarh in Hissar District. Out of his holding, he gifted 12 Bighas in favour of his daughter Shrimati Nand Kaur and a report to that effect was made in the Patwari's Roznamcha on l7th January, 1951. The mutation regarding this gift, however, was sanctioned on 21st December, 1953. On l5th June, 1952, he made another gift regarding 22 Bighas and 6 Biswas of land in favour of his son Bakshi Singh and a report about the same was recorded in the Roznamcha of the Patwari on the same date. The mutation regarding this gift also was sanctioned on 21st December, 1953. On 24th February, 1961, the Collector, Surplus Area, declared 26.71 standard acres as surplus with Meghi Singh. Against this order, Bakshi Singh and Nand Kaur filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division. This appeal was dismissed on 6th September, 1961. Thereafter, a revision was filed before the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, and it was rejected on 14th May, 1964. This order was challenged by means of a writ petition filed by Meghi Singh. Bakshi Singh and Nand Kaur in June, 1964. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court and against that decision the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.

(2.) The learned Financial Commissioner had rejected the revision petition on the ground that it had been filed after an inordinate delay. Allowing the number of days spent in obtaining the copies of the orders of the Commissioner and the Collector, there was still an unexplained delay of two years, which the learned Financial Commissioner refused to condone. In his order, the learned Financial Commissioner had further observed that the main grievance of the petitioners was that there was consolidation of holdings in the village after the declaration of the surplus area and, therefore, the petitioners wanted that the surplus area might be declared afresh. This contention was repelled by the Financial Commissioner observing that the remedy of the petitioners lay in their filing an application under Section 24-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. 1953, to the proper authorities. The revision petition was thus dismissed as hopelessly barred by time.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners before the learned Single Judge wanted to assail the orders of the revenue authorities on the ground that while declaring the surplus area they should have ignored the land of Meghi Singh, which had been gifted by him in favour of his daughter and son. The learned Single Judge, however, refused to allow the petitioners counsel to raise that point, because the same had not been argued before the Financial Commissioner. The learned Single Judge went on to observe, that the Financial Commissioner had rejected the revision petition on the ground of limitation and, therefore, the learned Judge said that this was not a case in which interference was called for in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.