RUPA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against an order of the Additional Commissioner, Bikaner dated 23rd March, 1954, in a proceeding for recovery of the price of the land with penalty found in excess in possession of the applicant.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the applicant and the Government Advocate. The learned Government Advocate has urged that this application for revision is not maintainable as it was presented after 16 months from the date of the order of the learned Additional Commissioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant however is that he got the information of the said order of the Additional Commissioner on 2-6-55 and presented this application on the 25th July, 1955. On a scrutiny of the record it is clear that Mst. Roopa, the applicant was duly informed on the 15th July, 1954, to deposit the dues in the Tehsil and that in default the property would be attached and sold to satisfy the Government dues. Prior to this i. e. on 22nd May, 1954, Soorajmal son of the applicant was also informed and he appeared before the Tehsildar who allowed him time to deposit the dues. It is thus clear that the applicant was duly informed of the order of the Commissioner about the recovery of the dues on the 16th July, 1954. If she wanted to file a revision against this order she could easily get a copy of the order in question and file an application for revision within a reasonable time. Instead of doing so, she took about 15 months in obtaining a copy of the order. The learned counsel has not been able to explain the in ordinate delay in filing this revision. His contention that he got the knowledge of the Commissioners' order on 2-6-55 is clearly untenable and cannot be accepted. In Parma vs. Amar Singh Case No. 20 of Gangangar Svt. 2010 reported at p. 113, RLW 1954,it has been held by a Division Bench of this Board that although no period was prescribed for the presentation of an application for revision but according to general practice obtaining in the Board, the period for presentation of applications for revision was 90 days and if no reasons for undue delay in presenting the application were shown by the applicant the application should be held to be beyond limitation and could not be entertained. The facts of this case are on all fours with those of the case referred to above. In the circumstances, the application is rejected. .