Order condoning delay under Limitation Act Section 5 by Collector in revenue appeal is appealable to Commissioner under Land Revenue Act Section 14 as it conclusively decides limitation, not interlocutory; revision not maintainable if appeal available.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Petitioner feels aggrieved against the order passed by respondent No.1-Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P. on 08.02.2024 holding that revision petition preferred by the petitioner was not maintainable in view of remedy of appeal available to him. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to avail appellate channel. The period spent by the petitioner in pursuing the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), was also ordered to be excluded for the purpose of limitation.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

3. Partition proceedings initiated under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as Act) were pending before the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Dharamshala. Petitioner was also party thereto. The Assistant Collector, First Grade, passed an order therein on 17.06.2017 accepting the mode of partition and sanctioned the same. Present respondent No.4 (not a party to the aforesaid partition proceedings) assailed the aforesaid order by filing an appeal under Section 14 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Dharamshala. Alongwith an appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved. The said application was allowed on 07.11.2023 and the appeal was set down for hearing.
Petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P. assailing the order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Collector. Revision petition was decided on 08.02.2024. The Financial Commissioner held that statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner against the order dated 07.11.2023. The petitioner could have availed remedy of appeal by filing the same before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, under Section 14 of the Act. The revision petition was accordingly disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to exhaust the appellate remedy. The period spent while pursuing the revision was ordered to be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation.
Petitioner felt aggrieved aggrieved and therefore, instituted this writ petition against the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. In terms of order passed in this writ petition on 22.04.2024, further proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Dharamshala, District Kangra have been stayed.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on considering the facts as also the applicable provisions of law, I am of the considered view that the order passed by Financial Commissioner does not call for any interference. Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act provides remedy of appeal from original or appellate order of Revenue Officer as under:-

14. Appeals.- Save as otherwise provided by this Act, an appeal shall lie from original or appellate order of Revenue Officer as follows, namely:-

(a) to the Collector when the order is made by n Assistant Collector of either grade;
(b) to the Commissioner when the order is made by a Collector;
(c) to the Financial Commissioner when the order is made by the Commissioner:
Provided that-
(i) when an original order is confirmed on first appeal, a further appeal shall not lie;
(ii) when any such order is modified or reversed on appeal by the Collector, the order made by the Commissioner on further appeal, if any, to him shall be final:
Provided further that any appeal relating to encroachment on Government land including forest land shall be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of filing thereof.”

Section 14 of the Act provides remedy of appeal from the original as also the appellate order of Revenue Officer. In case the Revenue Officer is Collector, the appeal against his original or appellate order