N.K. Sodhi, J. - (1.) Jai Ram the predecessor -in -interest of the petitioners herein was a big land owner of village Fatehpur, Tehsil Kaithal, District Kurukshetra. The Collector, Agrarian by his order dated 15.9.1960 declared an area of 17.15 Standard Acres of land equal to 137 Kanals 12 Marlas as surplus in the hands of Jai Ram after leaving the permissible area of 30 Standard Acres. Jai Ram died on 8.11.1973. Thereafter his sons (petitioners herein) filed an application under Ss. 10 -A and 10 -B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act) before the competent authority stating that their father had expired on 8.11.1973 and on his death the applicants (petitioners) had become small landowners and the area declared surplus in the hands of their father remained unutilised and, therefore, a request was nude to release the same from the surplus pool. The competent authority without giving any reasons whatsoever by order dated 11.7.1980 allowed the application and released an area of 137 Kanals 12 Marias of land from the surplus pool which bad earlier been declared surplus in the hands of Jai Ram deceased. The State Government filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana under Sec. 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short the Act) invoking his suo motu powers with a prayer that the records be sent for and the order dated 11.7.1980 be quashed as, according to the State Government, the said order was contrary to the provisions of law. This petition was allowed on 31.3.1998 with the following observations: "Interestingly and cryptically, the Prescribed Authority at the end of his order has said that since the land in question has vested in the State under Sec. 12(3), therefore, this decision is being made under the Haryana Act of 1972. The Prescribed Authority, however, did not indicate any Sec. of law under which he made the decision. In view of the clear position of law, I accept this revision petition and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 11.7.1980. Since these orders are clearly against the law and are of a shady character, I have no hesitation in setting them aside even after a few years of delay. The Collector, Surplus Area is directed to take back the possession of the surplus land involved within a period of two months."
(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Financial Commissioner the petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No. 9959 of 1998 in this Court, it was urged before this Court that the revision petition was filed by the State of Haryana after 8 years of the passing of the order by the competent authority and, therefore, the same should not have been entertained by the Financial Commissioner in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Loku Ram v/s. State of Haryana and Ors. , 1999 3 P.L.R. 901 (S.C.). The writ petition was allowed, the order of the Financial Commissioner set aside and the case remanded to the Financial Commissioner for re -decision in the light of the decision in Loku Ram's case (supra) with the following observations: "In cited case it has been held that the words at any time occurring in Sec. 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 could not be read in a mechanical manner and must be interpreted to mean within a reasonable time. As it appears that the learned Financial Commissioner was not cognizant of this judgment, this matter requires to be reconsidered by him once again. The order Annexure P -3 is accordingly quashed and the matter is remitted to the learned Financial Commissioner Haryana for re -decision in the light of the cited judgment."
(3.) The matter was reconsidered by the Financial Commissioner who by his order dated 16.8.2001 again allowed the revision petition filed by the State of Haryana and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 11.7.1980. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.;