AJMER KAUR versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 601 · Decided: 07-05-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

AJMER KAUR 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
MAY 7, 2004 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Punjab Land Reforms act, 1972; Sections 3(4) and IJ(5) & (7): 
Filing of return regarding land holding by husband and wife-
Collector ordered certain land as surplus-Application for re-determination C 
filed by the applicant almost 5 years after the death of his wife-Collector 
held that applicant was not holding any surplus land-On Review, reversed 
by the Collector-Revision/Review petitions/writ petition filed by the 
daughter of the applicant after the death of her father-Dismissed by the 
revenue authorities and the High Court-On appeal, Held: Application for D 
re-determination ought to have been dismissed as it was filed by the 
application almost 5 years after the death of his wife-Assuming that the 
landowner had the right to file the application even then it ought to be 
exercised within a reasonable time-Permitting the application at belated 
stage would have disastrous consequences and would result in grave E 
injustice-Defeats the object of the legislation-Collector was wrong in re-
opening the issue and reversing earlier order. 
Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887; Sections 80, 81 and 82: 
Period of Limitation/review-Held: Maximum period of limitation is 
ninety days-Since appeal against the order of the Collector declaring 
surplus land was dismissed and not challenged further, it became final-
lt cannot be re-opened after a lapse of 6 years. 
F 
Father of the appellant, landowner, filed a return along with his G 
wife declaring the land owned by them. Collector held 3.12 acres of 
the land surplus. The landowner preferred an appeal, which was 
dismissed by the Commissioner. In the meanwhile, surplus land was 
mutated in favour of the State Government which in turn allotted it 
to third parties. The landowner filed an application for re-deter~ination H 
601 
602 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A of the land holding almost S year after the death of his wife on the 
ground of succession. The Collector held that there was no surplus 
land. The surplus land declared earlier was restored to him and the 
mutation in favour of the State Government was concelled. The 
Collector, after obtaining necessary permission, reviewed its earlier 
B order and held that the owner .was holding surplus land. Appeal filed 
by the owner was dismissed by the Commissioner. After the death of 
the landowner, his daughter filed a Revision Petition, which was 
dismissed by the Financial Commissioner. Aggrieved, she filed a writ 
petition, which was dismissed by the High Court; however, it permitted 
C the petitioner to file a Review Petition to raise the questions which were 
sought to be reviewed in the writ petition. Review Application filed by 
her was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner. She challenged the 
order of the Commissioner, which was again dismissed by the High 
Court. Hence the present appeals. 
D 
It was contended by the appellant that since the order of the 
Collector holding that there was no surplus land had become final, it 
could not have been reviewed/re-opened by the Collector after expiry 
of the limitation period of 90 days; and that the right conferred on the 
land-owner under Section 11 (S) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act could 
E not be defeated by application of sub-section (7) ofSectionll of the Act. 
Respondents submitted that the power to condone delay has been 
vested with the authorities under the provisions of law; and that the 
time to seek review could be extended. 
F 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The bar of limitation does not come in the way of the 
Collector re-determining the permissible land holding of the landowner. 
Clause (b) of sub-section (I) of Section 82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act 
G shows that review can be made even after expiry of period of ninety 
days were the Revenue Officer is satisfied about cause for delay. The 
fact that the Commissioner granted permission to the Collector to 
review his order suggests that the hurdle of limitation had been 
successfully crossed. (606-F-G I 
H 
2.1. On 15th October, 1979, when the wife of the land-holder 
AJMER KAUR v. STA TE 
603 
made her Will she was left with no interest or title in the land and A 
therefore she could not have made a Will with respect thereto. The 
delay of almost 5 years by the landowner in filing the application for 
re-determination of the surplus land after death of his wife is fatal for 
him and th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.