Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Shri Amit Bansal & Ors.

2. Vide order dated 19.2.1998 Tehsildar, Punjabi Bagh, sanctioned mutation of land 5 Bigha & 5 Biswa comprised in Khasra No. 23/6/2(3-10), 23/15 (4-16), 23/7 (2-4), half share situated in village Razapur Khurd in favour of respondents No.l and 2 namely Amit Bansal and Punit Bansal though the name of Amit Bansal has been typed twice in the said order. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the Tehsildar, an appeal was preferred before Additional Collector, District West, Delhi. The appeal purported to be filed by Smt. Santosh through her attorney Shri Sant Ram. Since there was delay in filing the appeal, an application for condonation of delay in filing the 2013:DHC:2428 appeal was also filed by the appellant. The Additional Collector, West District by order dated 12.12.2002 condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

3. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the Additional Collector (West), respondents No.1 & 2 Shri Amit Bansal and Shri Punit Bansal preferred a revision petition before Finance Commissioner, Delhi under Section 72 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954. The Finance Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 9.4.2009, instead of going into the question of condonation of delay in filing the appeal, examined the matter on merits and set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector on 12.12.2002. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the Finance Commissioner, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. Initially, the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2 submitted that the petitioners forged signatures of Smt. Santosh on the appeal preferred against the order passed by the Tehsildar. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, pointed out that the said appeal was signed by Shri Sant Ram as attorney of Smt. Santosh and not by Smt. Santosh by herself. He further states that a power of attorney executed in his favour and Shri Sant Ram was competent to prefer such an appeal in the name of Smt. Santosh. Learned counsesl for respondents 1 & 2 submits that the said power of attorney was later revoked by Smt. Santosh. Learned counsel for the petitioners thereupon submits that the power of attorney being for consideration could not have been revoked and, therefore, the authority of Shri Sant Ram to and on behalf of Smt. Santosh will subsist. In view of this, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 does not press his objection that the appeal before the Additional Collector was filed with forged signature of Smt. Santosh.

5. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 states that a forgery was committed by Shri Sant Ram in other proceedings inter se between the parties and the chargesheet has already been filed against him in that regard. That, however, shall be of no consequence in the present writ petition since the appeal before Additional Collector was not filed with forged signatures.

6. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Finance Commissioner would show that instead of going into the issue of limitation he has gone into the merits of the case while considering the revision petition. The Finance Commissioner could only have gone into the issue of limitation and taken a view as to whether there was sufficient cause shown by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal or not. In case the Finance Commissioner comes to the conclusion that there was no justification for condonation of delay in filing the appeal only then he could have dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, but without going into the question of limitation, the Finance Commissioner could not have gone into the merits of the case. In fact in the event of the Finance Commission upholding the order of the Additional Collector condoning the delay in filing the appeal, he will have to refer the matter back.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 9.4.2009 passed by Finance Commissioner is set aside and the matter is remanded back to him to pass a fresh order in the revision petition preferred by Amit Bansal and Punit Bansal. The parties shall appear before the Finance Commissioner on 27.5.2013 at 11 a.m.

8. The revision petition shall be decided by the Finance Commissioner within three months from the date on which the parties appear before him. The writ petition stands disposed of. Dasti. V.K. JAIN, J MAY 10, 2013 aj