1. An order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) on 09-06-2000 is a subject matter of challenge in this petition. The facts in brief are as under:

2. That one Kanshu Ram was a land owner. He died in Feb. 1953. At that time, he left behind a widow Lakho, four sons and four daughters. The mutation regarding inheritance came to be made in Sept. 1961. This mutation was made in favour of all the heirs including the daughters. Later on, sons challenged this mutation before the Joint Settlement Commissioner. The said officer refused to interfere. This was on the ground of delay. The matter was taken up in the revision before Financial Commissioner (Revenue). The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) expressed an opinion that matter is required to be looked into afresh. It is this order which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. What is urged is that;

i) that the mutation was made in the year 1961, if any party was aggrieved against this mutation then challenge could be made within the period of limitation as prescribed under the Land Revenue Act. The period of limitation is said to be maximum of 90 days,

ii) that the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) could not direct reconducting of the enquiry after the lapse of period of limitation.

3. The above argument is sought o be refuted by taking a plea that Financial "commissioner has exercised suo-moto powers is vested in the said officer in terms of section 5 of the Land Revenue Act. Reliance is being placed on the following observation made by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue);

"Once such an order has come to the notice of the revisional authority under the Land Revenue Act, it will be unjust to refuse interference on the ground of limitation."

4. I am of the opinion that the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) (Revisional Authority) has exercised suo-moto powers and his could be done at any time. Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act reads as under:

"Section 15. Power to revise orders. (1) The Financial Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any Revenue Officer under his control.

(2) The Divisional Commissioner may call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any Revenue Officer subordinate to him.

(3) If in any case in which, the Divisional Commissioner has called for a record he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or order made should be modified or revised he shall report that case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Financial Commissioner. (4) The Financial Commissioner may, in any case called for by him under subsection (1) or reported to him under subsection (3), pass such order as he thinks fit.

Provided that, he shall under this section pass an order reversing or modifying any proceeding or order of subordinate officer affecting any question of right between private persons without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard."

5. Somewhat similar issue arose and (sic) decided by a Full Bench of Punjab High Court in case reported as Balwant Kour Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner, AIR 1964 Punjab 33, Interpreting Section 24 of the dis-3laced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, it was held that he words at any time would mean at any time. What is said is noticed below:

There was one other matter, which was argued before us and required determination and it is this. Section 24 of the Act says that the Chief Settlement Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any proceeding under this Act and may pass such order in relation thereto as he thinks fit." What is the meaning of the words "at any time" occurring in this section that is to say within what time limit can Chief Settlement Commissioner exercise his revisional powers either suo moto or on the application of any aggrieved party? Rule 104 lays down that a petition for revision under the Act shall be presented with the same period as a a memorandum of appeal shall be presented within 30 days of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document