Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 4385 (PNJ)

Harjinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2018-11-14

G.S.SANDHAWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by Harjinder Singh and Harmandar Singh sons of Baldev Singh @ Gurdev Singh s/o Kabir Singh are primarily challenging the order dated 01.07.1962 (P1) passed by the Collector Agrarian since their right for redetermination of the surplus land in the hands of Kabir Singh - the grandfather, has been rejected by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) on 05.05.2008 (P18) while allowing the review application of the State against the order dated 15.01.2004 (P17). 2. Vide the impugned order, the Financial Commissioner has held that the heirs of Kabir Singh are not entitled to apply for re-determination of the surplus area and the Collector should check the eligibility of Jagroop Singh - respondent No.5 herein for allotment of land. In case he was not held entitled to the land allotted to him out of the surplus area of Kabir Singh, then the land was to be brought in the surplus pool and necessary action to re-allot the same was to be undertaken. 3. The case has a chequered history and the facts are to be noticed in order to appreciate the legal right and controversy which arises as such to arrive at a just conclusion. The first order of declaring 11 Standard acres and 15 units as surplus was passed by Collector, Ferozepur on 01.07.1962 (P1) under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 of the big landowner Kabir Singh @ Kambir Singh who died on 10.06.1973. He was survived by wife Bhagwan Kaur, two sons, namely, Jagdev Singh and Baldev Singh @ Gurdev Singh and one daughter Bibi. Jagdev Singh also died in 1990 leaving behind wife Daljit Kaur, daughter Guddi and son Darshan Singh (respondent No.9). Baldev Singh @ Gurdev Singh s/o Kabir Singh is stated to have died on 06.01.1998 and was survived by Hartej Kaur-wife (respondent No.7) and two sons-Harjinder Singh and Harmandar Singh (the petitioners), daughter-Kulwinder Kaur (respondent No.8). Petitioner No.1 is said to have born in 1951 and the date of birth of petitioner No.2 is 04.05.1953. 4. On account of not taking possession of the land from Kabir Singh during his lifetime, it is pleaded that the land was not utilized by the official respondents during this period and therefore the land did not vest in the State of Punjab. 4. On account of not taking possession of the land from Kabir Singh during his lifetime, it is pleaded that the land was not utilized by the official respondents during this period and therefore the land did not vest in the State of Punjab. The Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 came into force and accordingly a notice dated 19.07.1983 (P2) under Section 9(1) of the Act was issued by the Collector, Agrarian to Darshan Singh-grandson of Kabir Singh (respondent No.9). On account of non-service upon the said respondent, a copy of the notice was pasted at his residential house on 13.08.1983 and on account of lack of any objections, warrants under Section 9(2) were issued on 25.08.1983 (P3) for 71K 10M land which had been declared surplus vide order dated 01.07.1962 by the Special Collector, Agrarian. 5. On 15.09.1983 (P4), the Collector, Agrarian, Muktsar wrote a letter to Tehsildar, Malout to take possession from respondent No.9 Darshan Singh-grandson of Kabir Singh and send a report within one week about the allotment in accordance with the Punjab Land Utilisation Scheme, 1973. Resultantly, Darshan Singh - respondent No.9 and the petitioners' father Baldev Singh @ Gurdev Singh filed two appeals against the order dated 25.08.1983 (P3) whereby the warrants of possession were issued under Section 9 (2). The Commissioner on 16.04.1984 (P5) came to the conclusion that the service on the appellants was not effected properly and therefore set aside the orders and remanded the case to the Collector with a direction that they be given an opportunity to file objections against notice issued under Section 9(1) of the 1972 Act and they be heard before fresh order is passed and the parties were directed to appear on 28.05.1984 before the Collector Agrarian. Vide order dated 01.04.1986 (P6), it was noticed that Darshan Singh - respondent No.9 had not put in appearance and though summons had been issued on 28.03.1985 and on account of refusal of Darshan Singh, he was proceeded against ex parte. Gurdev Singh - the petitioners' father had been served through munadi and did not come present and he was also proceeded against ex parte. Accordingly it was directed that proceedings be put up for allotment of land. 6. Gurdev Singh - the petitioners' father had been served through munadi and did not come present and he was also proceeded against ex parte. Accordingly it was directed that proceedings be put up for allotment of land. 6. An application dated 23.06.1987 (P7) for review was filed by Jagdev Singh father of respondent No.9 wherein a plea was taken that he had never been served and his father died 14 years back and succession of Kabir Singh had devolved upon him, his brother Gurdev Singh @ Baldev Singh, mother Bhagwan Kaur and sister Bibi in equal shares. They being small landowners, the land had not been allotted to any tenant and they were still in possession. Reliance was placed upon the death certificate, revenue record and the mutation etc., and statement was recorded on 29.08.1987 (P8) before the Special Collector, Agrarian. 7. On the basis of the statement, the Special Collector, Agrarian directed on 12.10.1987 (P9) to put up the file on 26.10.1987 and a communication be written to the Commissioner for review of the order dated 01.04.1986. Resultantly, communication dated 15.10.1987 (P10) was written to the Commissioner for permission to review the surplus case of Kabir Singh. It was factually recorded that the possession was not taken in favour of the Government of the declared surplus land and resultantly permission was sought to review the order dated 01.04.1986. The relevant portion reads as under:- "On perusal of file it is explicit that Jagdev Singh was not served and big owner had died in 1973 and possession was not taken in favour of the Government of his declared surplus area. Then it was required whether area remains surplus in the hands of his heirs or not. Thereafter this case was to be decided as to whether surplus area of big owner can be utilized or not. This has not been done. Permission be accorded to review above mentioned order dated 1-4-86." 8. In the meantime, appeal was also filed by Jagdev Singh against the order dated 01.04.1986 and it was adjourned sine die on 23.08.1989 (P11) on account of the fact that the Collector had requested for review of the impugned order. This has not been done. Permission be accorded to review above mentioned order dated 1-4-86." 8. In the meantime, appeal was also filed by Jagdev Singh against the order dated 01.04.1986 and it was adjourned sine die on 23.08.1989 (P11) on account of the fact that the Collector had requested for review of the impugned order. In the meantime, the Collector passed the order on 25.03.1991 allotting land to Gurtej Singh - respondent No.6 and Jagroop Singh and certificates dated 15.04.1991 (P12 & P13) of allotment were issued and on 07.08.1991, possession was delivered to the said respondents vide reports (P14 & P15) of the land measuring 47K-10M and 48K-0M. Respondent No.7-mother of petitioners filed an appeal against the allotment along with Kulwinder Kaur - respondent No.8 sister of the petitioners against the order of allotment dated 25.03.1991 to Jagroop Singh which was dismissed on 11.03.2002. The case was suo motu revived by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division who vide order dated 04.02.2003 (P16) came to the conclusion that the land was never utilized at the time of commencement of the 1972 Act and the big landowner Kabir Singh had died on 10.06.1973. The petitioners were major on the appointed day i.e. 24.01.1971 and surplus area of Kabir Singh should have been determined on the commencement of the new Act. Resultantly, the orders dated 25.08.1983 and 06.09.1983 passed under Section 9(1) & 9(2) of the 1972 Act were set aside along with order dated 25.03.1991 whereby allotment had been made in favour of respondents No.5&6. It was noticed that Jagroop Singh was also owner of land measuring 2 hectares of first quality land and was not entitled to allotment and was closely related with Jagdev Singh. Resultantly, it was directed that the matter need to be looked afresh at the level of Collector Agrarian and the case was remanded for afresh decision. 9. The matter was taken to the Financial Commissioner by Jagroop Singh who upheld the orders and dismissed the revision in limine on 15.01.2004 (P17) by noticing that the Commissioner had remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision and the whole issue was still open and Jagroop Singh had sufficient opportunity to put forth his case. The said order was never challenged by Jagroop Singh. Neither the State as such had ever challenged the order dated 04.02.2003 of the Commissioner at any stage before the FC. The said order was never challenged by Jagroop Singh. Neither the State as such had ever challenged the order dated 04.02.2003 of the Commissioner at any stage before the FC. In spite of this, a review petition was filed by the State that opportunity of hearing was not given before the decision of the revision petition. The Financial Commissioner while placing reliance on decision of Ajmer Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2004 (3) RCR (Civil) 174 came to the conclusion that the surplus area case cannot be reopened after a period of more than one decade from the date of death of landowner. Resultantly, the impugned order on 05.05.2008 (P18) was passed that the heirs of Kabir Singh are not entitled to re-determination of surplus area and the Collector should check the eligibility of Jagroop Singh and see whether he is entitled to allotment of surplus area failing which the land was to go back to the surplus pool and necessary action was to be taken to allot the same. 10. Counsel for the petitioner has thus relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ranjit Ram vs. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab & Ors. 1981 PLJ 259 to hold that the landowner who had not been dispossessed by the Government and if he has not been divested of the ownership, the land would not vest in the State Government. The landowner not divested from the ownership of the surplus land was therefore entitled to select permissible area for his family and for each of his adult sons in view of Section 4&5(1) of the 1972 Act. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ujjagar Singh (dead) by LRs vs. The Collector, Bathinda, 1996 (3) RCR (Civil) 446 for the said proposition. 11. Counsel for respondent No.5 Jagroop Singh, on the other hand, has justified the impugned order dated 05.05.2008 on the ground that it is being challenged after more than a period of 7 years and the writ petition was time barred as such. It is submitted that the actual possession of the land was firstly taken vide rapat dated 27.09.1983 and possession was delivered on 07.08.1991. Mr. Khungar along with Mr. ADS Jattana appearing for respondents No.5&6 have accordingly justified the order passed by Financial Commissioner. 12. It is submitted that the actual possession of the land was firstly taken vide rapat dated 27.09.1983 and possession was delivered on 07.08.1991. Mr. Khungar along with Mr. ADS Jattana appearing for respondents No.5&6 have accordingly justified the order passed by Financial Commissioner. 12. Surprisingly, the State, on the other hand, in its reply submitted that there is no State interest involved and the dispute is inter se between the private parties, even though the review application was at the instance of the State on the basis of which the impugned order dated 05.05.2008 has been passed by Financial Commissioner. 13. However, on the the factual aspect, it has been noticed and as reproduced above in paragraph-7, a categorical finding has been recorded that admittedly the big landowner had died on 10.06.1973 and possession had not been taken by the Government of his declared surplus area in pursuance of the order dated 01.07.1962 (P1). Once the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 came into force on 24.03.1973, the petitioners as such who were major at that point of time would as such necessarily become entitled to permissible area in view of the provisions of Section 4&5 of the 1972 Act. The Full Bench in Ranjit Ram's case framed the following questions which would be relevant in the present case:- "(1) Whether a landowner, whose land has been declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Law) or under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Pepsu Law) and who has not yet been divested of the ownership of the surplus area before the enforcement of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Reforms Act) is entitled to select the permissible area for his family and for each of his adult sons in view of the provisions of section 4 read with section 5(1) of the Reforms Act ?" 14. The said question was answered as under:- "2. The said question was answered as under:- "2. In all these cases, the land of the land-owners had been declared surplus before the coming into force of the Reforms Act, but the landowners had not been divested of the ownership as they were not dispossessed under the provisions of the Pepsu Law in one case and tenants were not settled after the surplus area was declared under the Punjab Law in the other cases. The landowners who have major sons have claimed on behalf of them that each one of the major sons of the landowners is entitled to permissible area in view of the provisions of sections 4 and 5 and other provisions of the Reforms Act. It is not disputed that the landowners were not divested of the ownership of the land before the Reforms Act was enforced. It may be pointed out that the Reforms Act was enforced on 2.4.1973 and the appointed day under the Act has been fixed to be 24th January, 1971. With a view to appreciate the points involved in the cases, it would be necessary to make mention of the salient features of the Punjab Law and Pepsu Law. Under the Punjab Law, every landowner, whether minor or major, was entitled to his or her permissible area. The land which was found to be beyond the permissible area of the land-owner was to be declared surplus. However, the land-owner did not cease to be the owner of the surplus land till the same was purchased by the tenants in accordance with the provisions of section 18 of the Punjab Law. The land owner is divested of the ownership of the land on the payment of the first instalment by the tenant to the landowner in pursuance of the order passed under section 18 of the Punjab Law. Till then the land-owner continues to be the owner of the land even though declared surplus. It would thus be seen that under the provisions of the Punjab Law a land-owner could continue to be the owner of the land beyond the permissible area but he was entitled to the permissible area for his self-cultivation. Under the Pepsu Law, the position was different. Each land-owner was entitled to the permissible area as defined under the said law. Under the Pepsu Law, the position was different. Each land-owner was entitled to the permissible area as defined under the said law. The area which was beyond the permissible area was declared surplus and when the possession of the surplus land was taken over by the State Government, the land-owner is divested of the ownership of the land and the same vests in the State Government. The land so declared surplus and taken possession of, can be utilised by the State Government for resettlement of the tenant by framing utilisation scheme. It would thus be seen that under the Pepsu Law a land-owner could not remain owner of the land more than the permissible area and the land vested in the State Government from the date the possession of the same was taken over by the State. It may further be noticed that under the Punjab Law and Pepsu Law, each land-owner was considered as a separate unit and the concept of family was absent. Thus if a minor son of a land-owner owned land in his own right, he was entitled to the permissible area even though he was a member of the family. 3. The concept of compulsory acquisition of land declared surplus as enshrined in the Pepsu Law has been brought in, in the Reforms Act. No person, as defined in the Reforms Act, can remain owner of the land more than the permissible area. The area so declared surplus under the Reforms Act shall vest in the State Government when possession is taken over by it under section 9 of the Reforms Act, but as regards the unit of permissible area there is a considerable departure in the Reforms Act. The method of valuation has also undergone a great change." xxxx xxxx xxxx "7. The area so declared surplus under the Reforms Act shall vest in the State Government when possession is taken over by it under section 9 of the Reforms Act, but as regards the unit of permissible area there is a considerable departure in the Reforms Act. The method of valuation has also undergone a great change." xxxx xxxx xxxx "7. As already observed, even if the land of a landowner has been declared surplus, either under the Punjab Law or under the Pepsu Law, and if the land of landowner has not been utilised and further has not been purchased by the tenants in case of Punjab Law, and if the landowner has not been dispossessed by the Government under the provisions of the Pepsu Law, he continues to be a landowner of the land and also holds the same even though his land has been declared surplus, till he is divested of its ownership by taking possession of the land under section 8 of the Reforms Act, where it has been provided that the surplus area declared as such under the Punjab Law or the Pepsu Law, which has not been utilised till the commencement of the Reforms Act, shall on the date on which the possession thereof is taken by or on behalf of the State Government, vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. It would thus be seen that such landowners' surplus area shall vest in the State Government on the date of taking of possession by the State Government under section 8 of the Reforms Act and till then the landowners are not divested of the ownership of the surplus land. Thus, if a landowner owns or holds land which is beyond the permissible area as defined under sections 4 and 5 of the Reforms Act, his case shall have to be processed again by the Collector and the determination of the permissible area and the surplus area has to be according to the mandate of sections 4 and 5 of the Reforms Act. Sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Reforms Act contains a clear bar that no person shall own or hold land in excess of the permissible area and when the case is re-processed by the Collector, the permissible area as provided for in sections 4 and 5 of the Reforms Act has to be allowed to the landowner. Sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Reforms Act contains a clear bar that no person shall own or hold land in excess of the permissible area and when the case is re-processed by the Collector, the permissible area as provided for in sections 4 and 5 of the Reforms Act has to be allowed to the landowner. It may be observed that the permissible area as defined under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Reforms Act is subject to the provisions of section 5 of the Reforms Act. This is so because a clear provision has been made to this effect in sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Reforms Act. Under section 5 of the Reforms Act if a landowner has an adult son, he shall also be entitled to select separate permissible area in respect of such son out of the land owned or held by him, subject to the condition that the land selected together with the land already owned or held by such son, shall not exceed the permissible area of each such son. It would thus be seen that merely because the case of a landowner had already been processed under the Punjab Law or the Pepsu Law would not be a bar for the application of the provisions of section 4 read with section 5 of the Reforms Act. The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Reforms Act entitles the landowner to select permissible area for his adult son from the land owned or held by him in addition to the permissible area of the family. It is clear that the rest of the provisions made in sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 5 of the Reforms Act are procedural. A landowner has been given option to furnish a declaration containing his selection of permissible area in which he is bound to include, firstly, land mortgaged with possession and, secondly, land under self-cultivation. However, under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Reforms Act, a landowner cannot have preference to include the land declared surplus under the Punjab Law, the Pepsu Law other than the area which was exempt from utilisation by the State Government immediately before the commencement of the Reforms Act. However, under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Reforms Act, a landowner cannot have preference to include the land declared surplus under the Punjab Law, the Pepsu Law other than the area which was exempt from utilisation by the State Government immediately before the commencement of the Reforms Act. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the State that since the area which has been declared surplus under the Punjab Law or Pepsu Law, other than which was exempt from utilisation, cannot be preferred to be included in the declaration for reservation of the permissible area, therefore, landowner is not entitled to select permissible area for his adult son from the land so declared surplus, is really without any merit. As already observed, the permissible area of a landowner as defined in sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Reforms Act, is subject to the provisions of section 5. Section 5 entitles the landowner to select permissible area for his adult son in addition to the permissible area of his family. The right of the landowner to get permissible area for his adult son in addition to the permissible area of the family, cannot be held to be taken away merely by his not filing a declaration under section 5 of the Reforms Act. If such landowner fails to make a declaration under section 5 of the Reforms Act, the Collector has been enjoined upon to obtain requisite information in the prescribed manner in accordance with the provisions of section 6 of the Reforms Act. Section 7 of the Reforms Act enjoins duty on the Collector to pass an order determining the permissible area and the surplus area of a landowner or a tenant, as the case may be. It cannot be successfully contended that in case a landowner fails to make declaration under section 5 of the Reforms Act, his adult son will not be given permissible area by the Collector when an order is passed under section 7 of the Reforms Act. It cannot be successfully contended that in case a landowner fails to make declaration under section 5 of the Reforms Act, his adult son will not be given permissible area by the Collector when an order is passed under section 7 of the Reforms Act. The failure of a landowner to furnish the declaration under section 5 of the Reforms Act has been made an offence under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Reforms Act and a landowner is liable to be imprisoned for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. If the Legislature intended that in a case where the landowner fails to make declaration, he will not be entitled to get permissible area for his adult son when so determined under section 7 of the Reforms Act, it would have clearly made provision to this affect in sub-section (2) of section 7. Since landowner has been given right to get permissible area for his adult son as well, omission of the landowner to file the declaration would not take away the right of his entitlement to get permissible area for his adult son in addition to the permissible area of the family. Collector is duty bound while passing an order under section 7 of the Reforms Act to allow permissible area for the adult son as well. It is clear that the entitlement of the landowner to get permissible area for his adult son is out of the land of the landowner held or possessed by him whether already declared surplus or not. Sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Reforms Act is only procedural section and an omission by the landowner of not filing a declaration under section 5 of the Reforms Act would not take away his right for getting permissible area for his adult son when the Collector has been enjoined upon under section 7 of the Reforms Act to pass an order determining the permissible area and the surplus area of a landowner. It may be appropriately observed at this place that the permissible area and surplus area is to be determined keeping in view the provisions of section 4 read with the provisions of subsection (1) of section 5 of the Reforms Act. It may be appropriately observed at this place that the permissible area and surplus area is to be determined keeping in view the provisions of section 4 read with the provisions of subsection (1) of section 5 of the Reforms Act. The combined reading of the said provisions would provide guidelines to the Collector to determine the permissible area or the surplus area of the landowner. I have already come to the conclusion that the remaining provisions of section 5, which deal with the procedure for selection, are procedural and the same cannot be made use of by the Collector under section 7 so as to nullify the mandatory provisions of section 4 and section 5 (1) which define permissible area and surplus area. If the Legislature intended to exclude the land which has already been declared surplus from the operation of the provisions of the Reforms Act, a clear provision would have been made to that effect in section 5(1) of the Reforms Act, but on the contrary I find that the land owner has been entitled to select separate permissible area in respect of his adult son out of the land owned or held by him. As already observed, till the landowner is divested of the rights of ownership, he continues to hold and own the land. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx "11. For the reasons recorded above, I answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and hold that a landowner, whose land has been declared surplus under the Punjab Law or under the Pepsu Law and who has not yet been divested of the ownership of the surplus area before the enforcement of the Reforms Act, is entitled to select the permissible area for his family and for each of his adult sons in view of the provision of Section 4 read with section 5(1) of the Reforms Act." 15. The said view was approved by the Apex Court in Ujjagar Singh by holding as under:- "It may be mentioned that in the aforesaid judgment "Punjab Law" refers to Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, "Pepsu Law" refers to Pepsu Tenancy Agricultural Land Act, 1955 and "Reforms Act" refers to Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. According to us, the majority judgment of the Full Bench, has correctly appreciated the scope of the three enactments referred to above. According to us, the majority judgment of the Full Bench, has correctly appreciated the scope of the three enactments referred to above. Once the lands declared as surplus under the Pepsu Act did not vest in the State Government, as possession thereof had not been taken, there has to be a fresh determination in respect of the area which the appellant is entitled to hold in the light of the Punjab Act." 16. It is to be noticed that the impugned order of Financial Commissioner arises out of the review petition filed by the State against the initial order dated 15.01.2004 whereby the order of Commissioner dated 04.02.2003 (P16) had been upheld. The revision petition of Jagroop Singh had thus been dismissed whereby the order of Collector as such allotting the land on 25.03.1991 had been set aside with a direction to have fresh look as to the issue of the determination of surplus area inter se the legal heirs of the big landowners Kabir Singh. Jagroop Singh had never agitated against the said order in any manner and not filed the writ petition against the dismissal of his writ petition. The State was, however, successful in getting the order reviewed only on the strength of the judgment of Apex Court in Ajmer Kaur's case. The valuable right of the petitioners as such was curtailed wrongly by the Financial Commissioner by allowing the review petition without the State as such having any rights involved in the dispute as such between the allotment of land to Jagroop Singh. The State had never at any point of time challenged the order dated 04.02.2003 (P16) whereby the Commissioner as such had set aside the orders dated 25.08.1983, 06.09.1983 and 25.03.1991 and therefore had no such legal right as such to file an application for review and put its hoof in the dispute and the controversy having not raised a challenge to the earlier order. In such circumstances this Court is of the opinion that the orders passed by respondent No.4 as such was without any basis and this aspect was never looked into. 17. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench in Harvinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. In such circumstances this Court is of the opinion that the orders passed by respondent No.4 as such was without any basis and this aspect was never looked into. 17. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench in Harvinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 2005(1) PLR 193 on the issue of limitation as such would not be relevant in the facts and circumstances since that matter was pertaining to the writ jurisdiction in promotion matters wherein it was held that the parties should approach the Court within six months. 18. Similarly, the judgment in Ajmer Kaur's case (supra) would also not be applicable since this Court had dismissed the writ petition in limine and it was held that the Collector had determined the surplus land on 27.03.1979 and the same could not be reopened after a lapse of 6 years vide order dated 23.07.1985 and the subsequent proceedings did not lie and the same was a nonest order. Therefore the subsequent proceedings had to fall and the issue could not be reopened. It was further noticed that the land was mutated in favour of the State Government in 1982 and allotted by it in 1983 and would lead to reopening the settled position and leading to third party interest. Thus the order of this Court was upheld in the facts and circumstances. 19. On the issue of limitation that the writ petition was filed belatedly after 7 years as such also would not detain this Court for long. The extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 does not as such provide for the period of limitation. The writ Court can reach out to ensure that the party is not prejudiced where the order is passed without jurisdiction. The extraordinary writ jurisdiction can always be exercised and the present case falls in that category as the purpose of Reforms Act would be frustrated if the order of Financial Commissioner reviewing the predecessor's earlier order is allowed to sustain. 20. The extraordinary writ jurisdiction can always be exercised and the present case falls in that category as the purpose of Reforms Act would be frustrated if the order of Financial Commissioner reviewing the predecessor's earlier order is allowed to sustain. 20. In the present case as noticed a vested right as such has accrued to the petitioners on the ground of death of their father on 10.06.1973 and the possession as such having not been taken by the State from 1962 onwards before the appointed day i.e. 24.01.1971 under the 1972 Act and resultantly the matter being covered by the Full Bench decision which view has been upheld by the Apex Court, the order of Financial Commissioner dated 05.05.2008 as such cannot be held to be justified in any manner. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the order of remand dated 04.02.2003 (P16) passed by the Commissioner was justified in the facts and circumstances which had been rightly upheld by the Financial Commissioner on 15.01.2004 (P17) and no fault could be found in the said order and the State was not justified in seeking review of the said order. 21. Resultantly, the writ petition is partly allowed; the order dated 05.05.2008 (P18) is quashed and the necessary exercise as directed by the Commissioner on 04.02.2003 and the Financial Commissioner on 15.01.2004 on the earlier occasion shall be conducted by the State. 22. Ordered accordingly.