Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2259 (PNJ)

Suresh Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2006-05-22

H.S.BHALLA, VINEY MITTAL

body2006
Judgment H.S.Bhalla, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two writ petitions being C.W.P. No. 10642 of 2005 and C.W.P. No. 10 of 2005 as both the writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioners and the subject matter of the controversy is also the same. The facts which emerge from record show that in the year 1974 the plot in question was allotted to Shadi Ram alias Shadi Lal. Petitioner No. 1-Suresh Kumar is son of Shadi Ram whereas petitioner No. 2 is his widow. 2. In the year 1989 an order of resumption was passed against Shadi Ram and the plot in question was ordered to be resumed on account of not raising construction. It appears that an appeal was filed by the aforesaid Shadi Ram before the appellate authority. However, the said appeal was dismissed in the year 1990. Shadi Ram, thereafter, did not choose to challenge the appellate order any further. Shadi Ram died in the year 1993. 3. The petitioners have pleaded that petitioner No. 1 was a minor of 13-1/2 years of age at the time of death of his father whereas petitioner No. 2 is an illiterate lady. It has been pleaded by the petitioners that both of them had absolutely no knowledge of the resumption proceedings initiated against aforesaid Shadi Ram nor had any knowledge of the appellate order passed in the year 1990. 4. In the year 2004, the respondents issued a proclamation for auction of the plot in question. On that the petitioners filed C.W.P. No. 10 of 2005 before this Court. The auction of the plot in question was challenged. Under an interim order passed by a Division Bench, the auction proceedings were stayed. It is claimed by the petitioners that when the aforesaid interim orders were produced before the authorities, then it came to their knowledge that resumption proceedings had also been initiated against Shadi Ram and even appeal filed by Shadi Ram had been dismissed in the year 1990. On acquiring the aforesaid knowledge, the petitioners immediately filed an appeal against the order of appellate authority before the Financial Commissioner and field petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. All the facts, which have been noticed above were pleaded in the said application. On acquiring the aforesaid knowledge, the petitioners immediately filed an appeal against the order of appellate authority before the Financial Commissioner and field petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. All the facts, which have been noticed above were pleaded in the said application. However, vide an order March 24, 2005, the learned Financial Commissioner has refused to condone the delay, consequently, dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As a result thereof, the revision petition filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed in limine being, barred by limitation. The aforesaid order dated March 24, 2005 is the subject-matter of challenge in C.W.P. No. 10642 of 2005. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings. 6. In our considered view in the light of the facts noticed above, it would be appropriate if the matter is decided by the Financial Commissioner on merits of the controversy. It is not in dispute that the plot was allotted to Shadi Ram in the year 1974. He had paid the full price for the said plot. However, the resumption order was passed against Shadi Ram only on account of non-construction. An appeal was field by Shadi Ram and it was also dismissed in the year 1990. Shadi Ram died in the year 1993. In these circumstances when the petitioner No. 1 was still minor and petitioner No. 2 was in illiterate lady then, they could not have the knowledge of resumption proceedings. The daughters of Shadi Ram, petitioner No. 3 to 6 are married. In any case, had the petitioners the knowledge of resumption proceedings they could have challenged the resumption proceedings qua the plot the price whereof was fully paid by their predecessor Shadi Ram. 7. Consequently, we condone the delay in filing the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner, and set aside the order dated March 24, 2005 passed by the Financial Commissioner, appended as Annexure P-13 in C.W.P. No. 10642 of 2005 and we restore the revision petition back to its original number. In these circumstances, the Financial Commissioner shall now decide the aforesaid revision petition on merits of the controversy. All the aforesaid facts shall be kept in view by the Financial Commissioner while adjudicating the matter on merits. 8. In these circumstances, the Financial Commissioner shall now decide the aforesaid revision petition on merits of the controversy. All the aforesaid facts shall be kept in view by the Financial Commissioner while adjudicating the matter on merits. 8. We also direct that no further proceedings qua the auction of the property in question shall be taken by the authorities till the matter is finally decided on merits by the Financial Commissioner. 9. The petitioner shall appear before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals)-respondent No. 2 on July 17,2006. A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.