The need for a reasonable explanation for delay and the requirement to avail other remedies before filing a revision petition under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.

V. M. Jain, J. - In the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.12.1998, Annexure P-8 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana vide which the Financial Commissioner has dismissed the revision petition under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the petitioners have filed the said revision petition before him after lapse of several years without giving any reason for not availing the remedies of filing appeal/revision before the Collector/Commissioner.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the record, we find no ground to interfere with the order dated 22.12.1998, Annexure P-8 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. While dismissing the petition, the learned Financial Commissioner, observed that the petitioners did not bother to file any appeal/revision before the Collector/Commissioner against the order dated 16.5.1985 etc. and without exhausting that channel they filed the present revision petition and that too in 1993. Furthermore. the Financial Commissioner while dismissing the revision petition also placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case Loku Ram v. State of Haryana and others, 1999(1) PLJ 1. Relying on the said judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, the Financial Commissioner held that he was not inclined to exercise the suo motu powers as provided under Section 18(6) of the Act in the present case, considering that the revision petition has been filed after several years and further considering that the petitioners have not availed the remedies of filing appeal/revision before the Collector/Commissioner. In Loku Rams case (supra) it was held by the Honble Supreme Court as under

"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 and 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 it."

5. No doubt, the section uses the expression at any time but it cannot 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 SC 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 prescribes 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 prescribe 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 Raghavs 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 18.6.82 is restored. No costs."

3. In view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Loku Rams case (supra), it would be