Paramjeet Singh, J. - (1.) 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.
(2.) 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 v. State of Haryana, : 1999 (1) P.L.J. 1 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 State of Gujarat v. P. Raghav, : A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1297, Ibrahim Patnam Taluk Vyavasaya Collie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy and others, : A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3592 and Santosh Kumar Shivgonda Patil and others v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others, : (2009) 9 S.C.C. 352. 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.
(3.) 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.;