- (1.) The order in challenge is one passed by the Financial Commissioner exercising the authority under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act of 1972 on 27.01.1992, purporting to invoke suo motu power of revision and setting aside the order of the Collector passed on 21.12.1981.
(2.) The Collector, Surplus Area, Thanesar, by its order dated 27.05.1960, declared an area measuring 16 standard acres and 10 1/4 units as surplus with one Lala Ram. Lala Ram died on 11.05.1981. While the State had utilized 13 standard acres and 9 (3/4) units by way of allotment to eligible tenants an extent measuring 3 standard acres and 1 unit remained unutilized. The legal heirs of Lala Ram had applied on 05.06.1981 to the authority that after the death of their father, they had become small landowners and the unutilized area should, therefore, be taken out of surplus pool. The Collector had originally relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA STATE vs. KALA DEVI, 1980 PunLJ 121 that if any portion of the property of the big landowner remained unutilized after the declaration under the Security of Land Tenures Act and succession had opened before the declaration was made under the Haryana Act, the property must be allowed to devolve on succession to his legal heirs. Even the allotment made already was set aside on the ground that the area had to be utilized only from the surplus pool. This order of the Collector was set aside, rejecting a plea that the powers of revision could not be exercised belatedly and applied the decision of the Division Bench in LPA No.963 of 1989, dated 19.09.1990, holding that if the property had already been declared as surplus under the Security of Land Tenures Act, the issue of non-utilization was irrelevant and the effect of succession cannot be considered.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners refers me to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Loku Ram Versus State of Haryana and others, 1999 1 PunLJ 1 that held that powers of revision cannot be exercised unreasonably after long period of years and the Supreme Court was quashing the order of the Financial Commissioner passed 7 years after the order passed by the Collector. The counsel would also argue that in this case the power of revision was being exercised more than 10 years later and hence, the same cannot be reopened in revision. To the same effect was the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Diwan Hira Lal Kapoor and others Versus State of Haryana and others, 2002 1 PLJ.;