Ranjit Singh, J. - (1.) This writ petition was listed for hearing alongwith the bunch of seven other writ petitions as common question of law arose in all these petitions. This petition was, however, segregated and put up for rehearing by noticing some distinctive features in this case. The issue of law, which arises in this case and the other petitions relates to the delay on the part of the State to invoke revisional jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner under Section 18 (6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short, "the Act") for setting-aside the order passed by the prescribed authority.
(2.) The prescribed authority in this case has also held that there could be no objection to the declaration furnished by Dalip Singh, petitioner, for being treated as having been furnished by his mother, Dakhan, and decided the surplus area accordingly vide order dated 5.4.1984. The prescribed authority, thus, allowed one primary unit of permissible area to Dakhan and one separate unit for her adult son, Dalip Singh (petitioner). Against this order, Commissioner, Hisar Division, on the basis of inspection note dated 20.2.1986 to 27.2.1987 submitted by Tehsildar Agrarian on the process of land reforms work in Sirsa Sub Division, reopened the surplus area case of the petitioner and made reference to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide memo No. 2125 dated 26.6.1987, praying for action under Section 18(6) of the Act and for setting-aside the impugned order dated 5.4.1984 passed by the prescribed authority. On this basis, the State filed a revision petition in the year 1987 in the Court of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, raising various contentions against the impugned order dated 5.4.1984. The Financial Commissioner thereafter decided to allow the said revision petition on 9.6.1994 and remanded the case back to the prescribed authority with a direction to calculate the surplus area afresh after allowing one unit of permissible area to Dalip Singh, petitioner and his family and permit him to select permissible area of one unit. Thereupon, the prescribed authority has allowed one unit on permissible area to Dalip Singh and thereby has declared 490 kanals and 12 marlas of area as surplus on 29.8.1995. The petitioner accordingly has challenged order dated 9.6.1994 (Annexure P-5) and consequential order dated 29.8.1995 (Annexure P-6), contending that these are grossly arbitrary, capricious, illegal, without jurisdiction, unjust and inequitable.
(3.) The background and the facts leading to passing of impugned orders may now be noticed.;