Kala Wati And Others vs Financial Commissioner Haryana And Others

1
LPA-2132 of 2026 (O&M)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

106
LPA-2132 of 2026 (O&M)


Reserved on: 12.10.2026
Pronounced on: 30.10.2026
Uploaded on 30.10.2026

Whether only operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or the full judgment is pronouned: Full judgment


KALA WATI AND OTHERS
…..Appellants

V/S

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA AND OTHERS


… Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH GAUR

Present: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the appellants (through V.C.)




RAJESH GAUR, J.

1. Present intra-Court Appeal has been filed under clause X of the
Letters Patent, assailing the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the learned Single
Judge, whereby challenge to the orders dated 29.09.2006 (Annexure P-10),
11.04.2007 (Annexure P-11), 30.11.2007 (Annexure P-12), 30.07.2008
(Annexure P-13), 03.11.2008 (Annexure P-14) and Sanad Takseem dated
03.11.2008 (Annexure P-15) passed/issued by the learned Assistant Collector,
Ist Grade, Tehsildar, Mahendergarh, order dated 09.05.2012 (Annexure P-16)
passed by the learned Collector, Sub Division Mahendergarh, and order dated
KAMAL GANDHI
2026.10.30 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
LPA-2132 of 2026 (O&M)



07.08.2025 (Annexure P-22) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner,
Haryana, came to be dismissed.

2. The facts emerging from the record indicate that the partition
proceedings in respect of the joint land were initiated by the predecessor-in-
interest of the appellants as far back as in the year 1991. Although, the Mode of
Partition was approved on several occasions, the same was repeatedly
challenged by one of the parties, resulting, in prolonged litigation.

3. Ultimately, vide order dated 03.11.2008, Sanad Takseem was
issued, whereby the appellant was deprived of the land claimed by him. Instead
of availing the appropriate remedy by filing a revision petition, the predecessor-
in-interest of the appellants instituted a civil suit challenging the Sanad
Takseem .

4. Upon dismissal of the civil suit, an appeal was preferred, which
was also dismissed. Thereafter, the appellants preferred the revision petition
before the learned Financial Commissioner, accompanied by an application
seeking condonation of delay. The delay was sought to be explained on the
ground that the Sanad Takseem had initially been challenged before the wrong
Forum. However, learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana, declined to
entertain the revision petition, holding that delay of 4550 days could not be
condoned, as the explanation furnished did not constitute sufficient cause for
condonation of such delay. Hence the present Letters Patent Appeal.

5. Heard.
KAMAL GANDHI
2026.10.30 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
LPA-2132 of 2026 (O&M)




6. The writ petition was instituted, inter alia, on the ground that
Section 158 of the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887, (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘Act’) expressly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of matters
falling within the domain of the revenue authorities under the Act. It is also not
the appellant’s case that they were deprived of usual legal advice regarding the
appropriate remedy available for challenging the impugned proceedings.
Rather, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants chose to institute a civil suit on
untenable grounds, which was ultimately dismissed, resulting in a delay of
nearly 12 years in pursuing the appropriate remedy.

7. Section 16 of the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887, is reproduced
hereunder for the sake of convenience;
SECTION-16, POWER TO CALL FOR, EXAMINE AND
REVISE PROCEEDINGS OF REVENUE OFFICER
“16. (1) The Commissioner may call for the record of any case
pending before, or disposed of by any Revenue-officer under his
control and pass such order.
(2) The Collector may also call for the record of any case pending
before, or disposed of by any Revenue-officer under his control and
if he is of the opinion that the proceedings taken or order made
should be modified or reversed, he shall report the case with his
opinion thereon for the orders of the Commissioner, whose
decision shall be final:
Provided that he shall not pass an order reversing or modifying
any proceedings or order of a subordinate Revenue-officer and
affecting any question of right between private persons without
giving them an opportunity of being heard.
KAMAL GANDHI
2026.10.30 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
LPA-2132 of 2026 (O&M)




8. Upon perusal of the Act, it is evident that the provision empowers
the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, to call for and examine the record of any
case pending before, or disposed of by any Revenue-officers subordinate to him.
However, the expression ‘ at any time’ cannot be construed as conferring
unfettered power to entertain a revision petition irrespective of inordinate and
unexplained delay invoking such jurisdiction. In the absence of any satisfactory
explanation for a delay extending to nearly 12 years, exercise of the revisional
jurisdiction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Accordingly, the inordinate
and unexplained delay constitutes a valid ground for declining to entertain the
revision petition.

9. Apart from the aforesaid facts, present appeal has also been filed
with a delay of 201 days. Upon the Court, especially seeking an explanation for
the said delay, the appellant, namely, Kala Wati, aged 64 years, filed an
additional civil miscellaneous application bearing CM no. 5176-LPA-2026
seeking condonation of delay, stating that she was suffering from serious
ailments associated with the old age.

10. However, when the Court further queried as to why the remaining
appellants no. 2 to 6, who had also been pursuing the matter and were
comparatively younger, had failed to institute the present appeal within the
prescribed period of limitation, no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming on
behalf of the appellants. Thus, the explanation furnished for the delay of 201
days remained unsubstantiated insofar as the other appellants were concerned.
KAMAL GANDHI
2026.10.30 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
LPA-2132 of 2026 (O&M)




11. The principles governing the condonation of delay have been
succinctly summarized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Esha Bhattacharjee
v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others, 2013
(12) SCC 649. While recognizing that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ deserves
a liberal and justice-oriented construction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, at
the same time, cautioned that such liberality cannot be extended without regard
to the conduct of the litigant. Gross negligence on the part of litigant or his
counsel and lack of bona fide are relevant considerations. The relevant part of
the above-said judgment reads as under:-
“12 In G. Ramegowda, Major and others v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Bangalore, Venkatachaliah, J. (as his Lordship then was),

speaking for the Court, has opined thus:-
“The contours of the area of discretion of the courts in the matter of
condonation of delays in filing appeals are set out in a number of
pronouncements of this Court. See : Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v.
Rewa Coalfield Ltd.; Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari; Concord
of India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nirmala Devi; Lala Mata Din v. A.
Narayanan; Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji etc. There is, it is true,
no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel. If
there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bona fide on
the part of the party or its counsel there is no reason why the opposite
side should be exposed to a time-barred appeal. Each case will have to
be considered on the particularities of its own special facts. However,
the expression ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 5 must receive a liberal
KAMAL GANDHI
2026.10.30 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
LPA-2132 of 2026 (O&M)



construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays
in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of
justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona
fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay.”



12. It is further a settled law in the matters of land revenue, as
adjudicated upon by this Hon’ble Court in the judgments of ‘M/s Active
Promoters Private Limited and others Vs. The Financial Commissioner,
Haryana and others’ CWP No. 31057 of 2024, and of ‘Lovedeep Singh Vs.
Financial Commissioner (Appeals ), Punjab ’ CWP No. 25751 of 2025 that a
petition is liable to be dismissed if the litigant sleeps over their right for a
prolonged period, without any sufficient cause thereof.

13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case,
as well as the relevant provisions of law, we find no ground to interfere with the
order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the
present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.

14. All pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.

(SUVIR SEHGAL) (RAJESH GAUR)
JUDGE JUDGE


30.10.2026
Kamal Gandhi


Whether speaking Yes
Whether reportable Yes
KAMAL GANDHI
2026.10.30 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document