Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 543 (PNJ)

Data Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana

2001-05-15

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, N.K.SUD

body2001
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - Respondents No. 4 to 9 filed a petition for the eviction of the petitioner from land measuring 8 Kanals 8 Marlas. It was alleged that the petitioner had failed to pay Batai for a period of three years viz. 1987 to 1990. The petition was allowed by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 7.6.1993. The petitioner claims to have filed an appeal on 28.7.1993, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.12.1993 as being barred by limitation. The petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner. He prayed that in the circumstances of the case, the delay of 19 days be condoned. The revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 2.12.1994. The petitioner filed a second revision before the Financial Commissioner. It was dismissed vide order dated 24.2.1999. Copies of the orders passed by different authorities have been produced as Annexures P-1 to P-3 and P-5. The petitioner prays that these orders be quashed. 2. Notice of motion was issued. The office reports that the respondents have been served. No one appears on their behalf. Thus, we have no alternative but to proceed against them ex parte. 3. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Collector has erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay. 4. It is undoubtedly correct that there was a delay of 19 days in filing the appeal. An application for condonation had been filed. It was alleged that the petitioner was not feeling well. The delay was not too long. In any event, another appeal in a connected matter between the same parties had been filed on 24.7.1993 while the appeal in this case had been filed on 28.7.1993. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal should have been decided on merits and not merely on the ground of limitation. A fact which deserves mention is that despite service, the respondents have not put in appearance. We are informed that they had failed to appear even before the Financial Commissioner. 5. In the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the orders passed by the Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, copies of which have been produced as Annexure P-2, P-3 and P-5 are liable to be quashed. It is ordered accordingly. We are informed that they had failed to appear even before the Financial Commissioner. 5. In the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the orders passed by the Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, copies of which have been produced as Annexure P-2, P-3 and P-5 are liable to be quashed. It is ordered accordingly. The case is remanded to the Court of the Collector, Faridabad, for a decision on merits. The case shall be decided within three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Since no one had put in appearance on behalf of the respondents there will be no order as to costs. Petition accepted.