1. Declaration of no surplus land under Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 — Collector's order — Suo motu revision by Financial Commissioner after seven years. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 1290
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. Punchhi, CJI., M. Srinivasan, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, JJ.
Loku Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7050 of 1994.
Decided On : 20-8-1998
The power of a revisional authority to act suo motu "at any time" is not indefinite and must be exercised within a reasonable time, determined by the facts of the case, especially when statutory limits for appeals and revisions are short.
Headnote:(A) Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 - Section 18(6) - Suo motu powers of Financial Commissioner - Expression "at any time" - Power to call for records to satisfy legality or propriety of proceedings - Power must be exercised within a reasonable time - Length of reasonable time to be determined by facts of the case and nature of the order being revised (Paras 4, 5).
(B) Revisional Power - Limitation - Where Section 18(2) and 18(4) of the Act prescribe short periods of 15 and 30 days for filing appeal and revision respectively, it is unreasonable to hold that the power to entertain a revision suo motu is unlimited and can be exercised after a lapse of several years (Para 6).
Facts of the case:
A declaration was filed stating there was no surplus area, and the Collector declared the person a small landowner. This order was not challenged for seven years. Subsequently, the Financial Commissioner invoked suo motu powers to set aside the Collector's order on the grounds of patent illegality. The High Court refused to interfere with this order.
Findings of Court:
The Financial Commissioner failed to provide reasons why a period of nearly seven years was reasonable on the facts of the case. The High Court also failed to examine whether the power was exercised within a reasonable period.
Issues: Whether the expression "at any time" in Section 18(6) of the Act grants the Financial Commissioner unlimited power to exercise revisional jurisdiction regardless of the time elapsed since the original order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the expression "at any time" cannot be interpreted as indefinite; the power must be exercised within a reasonable time. Given the short statutory periods for appeals and revisions, exercising suo motu power after seven years without justification is unreasonable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Financial Commissioner's suo motu revisional power under Section 18(6) of the Act can be exercised after a significant lapse of time. (Para 2 )
3. The expression at any time in revisional powers is not indefinite and must be exercised within a reasonable period determined by the facts of the case. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Suo motu revisional powers, even when phrased as at any time, must be exercised within a reasonable time, especially when other statutory appeals have short limitation periods. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Appeal allowed; Financial Commissioner's order set aside and Collector's order restored. (Para 7 )
6. Does the phrase at any time in a statute grant unlimited power to exercise revisional jurisdiction?
No. The court held that the expression at any time cannot be indefinite. Such power must be exercised within a reasonable time, the length of which is determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order being revised. (Para 5 )
7. How do short statutory limitation periods for appeals influence the exercise of suo motu revisional powers?
When a statute prescribes very short periods for filing appeals and revisions, it is unreasonable to hold that a suo motu power to revise orders is unlimited or can be exercised after several years. (Para 6 )
8. What is the requirement for an authority exercising suo motu revisional power after a significant delay?
The authority must provide reasons to hold that the period of delay is reasonable based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 7 )
ORDER :
M.M. Punchhi, CJI. - The appellant filed a declaration under the provisions of the Haryana Celling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 that he had no surplus area in his hands. The Collector had accepted his contention by his order dated 18.6.1982 and declared him to be a small landowner. That order was not challenged by the Government though it was represented before the Collector by an officer. Neither an appeal was filed nor a revision against the said order.
2. However, in 1989, an application was presented before the Financial Commissioner under Section 18(6) of the Act praying for invoking his suo motu powers to look into the legality of the orders after calling for the records of the Collector. The Financial Commissioner, after hearing both parties, passed an order on 17.2.1994 setting aside the order of the Collector on the basis that the same was vitiated by patent illegality. An objection was raised before the Financial Commissioner that he should not exercise the revisional power after a lapse of seven years from the date of the order of the Collector. He over-ruled that objection holding that when an order was vitiated by illegality, he could look into the same under Section 18(6) of the Act. The Financial Commissioner disagreed with the Collector and set aside his order.
3. The order of the Financial Commissioner was challenged before the High Court in a writ petition but the High Court refused to interfere with the same. The present appeal before us is against that order of the High Court.
4. Section 18(6) of the Act reads thus :-
"Section 18(6). - Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections, the Financial Commissioner may suo motu at any time call for the record of any proceedings or order of any authority subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or order, and may pass such order in relation thereto as he may deem fit."
5. No doubt, the section uses the expression "at any time" but it cannons be indefinite. The power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. While construing the expression "at any time", this court in State of Gujarat v. P. Raghav , AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1297. has stated the law thus :-
"11. The question arises whether the Commissioner can revise an order made under Section 65 at any time. It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211, but it seems to us plain that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised."
6. Section 18(2) of the Act prescribed a period of 15 days for filing an appeal and Section 18(4) prescribes a period of 30 days for filing a revision before the Commissioner. When the two Sub-Sections prescribed a very short period of 15 and 30 days respectively, it will be unreasonable to hold that the Financial Commissioner has unlimited power to entertain a revision after a lapse of several years.
7. The test prescribed by this Court in Raghav's case has been ignored by the Financial Commissioner in the present case. His order does not disclose any reason to hold that a period of nearly seven years is reasonable on the facts of the case. Nor has the High Court gone into the question and decided whether the power has been exercised on the facts and circumstances within a reasonable period. Hence we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. The order of the Financial Commissioner is also set aside. The order of the Collector dated 18.6.1982 is restored. No costs.
C.A. No. 7052/95 and C.A. No. 4111/98 (Arising out of S.L.P. 247 of 1995)
Leave granted in S.L.P.
The contention raised in these two appeals by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Financial Commissioner had not exercised his power of revision under Section 18(6) of the Act within a reasonable time. We find that in neither of the cases, the conten
