Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 602 of 1959‑60, decided on 13th May 1963.

para. 7 read with r. 12(1), Land Reforms Rules‑Suo motu action by Chief Land Commissioner discretionary‑Aggrieved person cannot apply for taking such action‑Application for revision under r. 12(1) made long after expiry of prescribed period‑Rejected as time‑barred.

Pirzada Abdus Sattar for Petitioner.

Syed Zahoor Abbas for A.‑G. for the State.

This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 24th of June 1959 passed by the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he rejected the request of the petitioner for the validation of the alienation of the land in dispute in favour of one Ghulam Nabi Shah.

The order of the Land Commissioner was passed on 24th June, 1959 but the petition was filed on 28th June 1960. The main question for consideration is whether it was filed in time.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the representative of the Advocate‑General. The order of the Land Commissioner mentions the presence of the petitioner and the last word of the order indicates that it was announced on that day. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit from the petitioner as well as the counsel who is alleged to have appeared before the Land Commissioner on behalf of the petitioner. The intention is to prove that the arguments were heard on the 24th but the order was announced later in the day and not in the presence of the petitioner. A reference to the file however, shows that only the petitioner was heard and his counsel was not present. Therefore, the affidavit filed by the counsel does not appear to be relevant. It is thus clear that there is no independent evidence to support the contention of the petitioner.

The record shows that the order was sent to the petitioner care of the Mukhtiarkar. Enquiries revealed that, after the passing of the order, two letters were delivered to the petitioner but it has not been established that they, contained a copy of the order in question. It is true that it has not been established that a copy of the order was actually delivered to the petitioner but, as pointed out by the representative of the Advocate‑General, the petitioner was supposed to be vigilant about his case. He was heard on the 24th of June 1959 and it was well‑known that the Land Commission cases were disposed of expeditiously at every level. It is, therefore, not understood as to why he should wait till the 9th of June 1960 to make enquiries about his case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to para. 8 of the revision petition and has said that therein a request was made for taking action suo motu. The provisions of Rule 12 (1) are meant for calling for the record of cases pending with or disposed of by Land Commission Authorities. The sending of the record can be affected in one of the two‑ways either (a) suo motu, that is, by the Chief Land Commissioner of his own motion or (b) on an application made within 30 days.

This is a case in which an application was made for calling for the record. The very heading shows that it was revision filed under 12 (1) of the Land Reforms Rules. The provision of limitation will, therefore, be applicable to such an application. It was made several months after the announcement of the order and cannot, therefore, be considered to be in time.

Suo mote action is to be taken by the Chief Land Commis sioner in his discretion. It is not open to a party to move him in this behalf. The only course of action open to a person under rule 12 (1) is to make an application within time and then the. Chief Land Commissioner will take action as envisaged byre, rule 12 (1). If it is considered that an aggrieved person can also, apply to the Chief Land Commissioner for taking action suo motu, then the provision under which limitation has been prescribed will be meaningless. It is, therefore, quite clear that whatever the contents of an application, no person is competent to move the Chief Land Commissioner for taking action suo motu.

Having considered all aspects of the case, I hold that this is an application which was not made within the prescribed period of 30 days. As the law exists, no condonation of delay is possible and the application is, therefore, rejected , as time- barred.

So far as action on the suo motu side is concerned, the matter should be examined by the Land Commissioner Secretariat without any reference to the application made by the petitioner.

S. Q. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.