STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. versus RAJ KUMAR BRIJENDER SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 618 · Decided: 22-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR, ARUN KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST A TE OF H.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
RAJ KUMAR BRUENDER SINGH AND ORS. 
APRIL 22, 2004 
B 
[B.RIJESHKUMARANDARUNKUMAR,JJ.] 
Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972: 
S. 20(3)-Financial Commissioner-Exercise of suo motu power of 
C revision after withdrawal of appeal by State Government against order of 
Collector-Held, Financial Commissioner would have power to proceed suo 
motu in a suitable case even though an appeal preferred before lower 
appellate authority is withdrawn may be by the State-Financial 
Commissioner while exercising the power under sub-s.(2) of s. 20 acts as a 
D statutory authority and no restriction can be placed on exercise of such 
power on the.ground that he is a part of the machinery of the State Government 
or an officer of the State-It is in a different statutory capacity under which 
Financial Commissioner exercises his power and is free to pass any order in 
accordance with law which may or may not be against the State Government. 
E 
S.20(3)-Revision-By exercise of suo motu power by Financial 
Commissioner-Limitation-Order of Collector declaring certain land as 
surplus-Appeal by State Government before Commissioner-Later 
withdrawn-I 5 years thereafter Financial Commissioner exercising suo motu 
power of revision-Held, the order of the Financial Commissioner stands 
F vitiated having been passed after a long lapse of I 5 years of the order which 
has been interfered with-Exercise of the power after unreasonable lapse of 
time and such delayed action on his part nullifies the order passed by him 
in exercise of power in sub-s.(3) of s.20. 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 130of1999. 
Fr.om the Judgment and Order dated 23.6.97 of the Himachal Pradesh · 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 96of1992 
WITH 
C.A. No. 131 of 1999. 
618 
ST A TE v. RAJ KUMAR BRUENDER SINGH 
619 
J.S. Attri, Additional Advocate General, (H.P.), (AC) for the Appellants. A 
B.S. Banthia for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
. The dispute in this appeal relates relates to declaration of surplus area B 
under the provisions of the Himachal Paradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 
1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). On coming into force of the 
aforesaid Act, ceiling proceedings were initiated and an order was passed by 
the Collector on 14.I.1976 as a result of which 9,000 bighas of land belonging 
to the original owner Raja Lakshman Singh, whose heirs are respondents in 
this appeal, was declared surplus and I,opo bighas was left as the land which C 
they were found entitled to hold within the permissible limits on the basis of 
the number of units in the family. 
The State, it seems, felt aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector. 
Hence, it filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The appeal was, however, 
withdrawn by the State on March 20, 1976. As a result of the withdrawal of D. 
the appeal preferred against the order of; the Collector, the order passed by 
the Collector attained finality. The Financial Commissioner, however, seems to 
have exercised his suo moto power under Section 20(3) of the Act and by 
Order dated 7.11.91 set aside the order of the Collector dated 14.1.1971. It may 
be noted here that the Financial Commissioner had initiated the suo moto E 
proceedings on 21.8.1990. As a consequence of the order passed by the 
Financial Commissioner, the permissible area in the hands of the respondents 
was still reduced, hence, they preferred a writ petition against the order 
passed by the Financial Commissioner. A number of grounds had been taken 
by the respondents impugning the validity of the order passed by the Financial 
Commissioner. Out of the several points, one related to the power of the F 
Financial Commissioner to exercise the suo moto power after the State had 
withdrawn the appeal and the other was regarding delayed exercise of the 
power, that is to say, about 15 years after passing of the order by the 
Collector. It may also be noted that the appeal preferred by the State against 
the order of the Collector before the Commissioner was also withdrawn around G 
the same period, namely March, 1976. 
The High Court observed that it was not necessary to go into the merits 
of different grounds raised by die respondents challenging the order of 
Finaucial Commissioner and preferred to deal with the question relating to 
power of the Financial Commissioner to take up the matter suo moto after the H 
620 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.