Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahant Lakshmi Dhar Through vs Financial Commissioner on 20 August, 2008
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: Rajive Bhalla
CWP No.3818 of 1984 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.3818 of 1984
Date of Decision: 20.8.2008
Mahant Lakshmi Dhar through
his legal representatives .....Petitioner
Vs.
Financial Commissioner, Taxation,Punjab,
Chandigarh and others ....Respondents
....
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
****
Present : Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.N.S. Pawar, Addl.A.G.Punjab for respondents no.1 to 3.
Mr.Onkar Rai, Advocate for respondent no.4.
...
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)
The petitioner, now represented by his legal representatives prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the orders (Annexures P-5 and P-3) dated 31.5.1984 and 27.7.1983, passed by the Financial Commissioner and Additional Commissioner, respectively.
Proceedings under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') were initiated against the petitioner and an area measuring 18.2741 std. Hectares was declared surplus. Respondent no.4, apparently an ejected tenant of another landowner, filed an application to the Collector for allotment of surplus area and also alleged that there was an error in calculation while determining the surplus area of the petitioner. The Collector, Agrarian, Dasuya examined the application but as he failed to discern any discrepancy or error in the surplus area order, CWP No.3818 of 1984 2 dismissed the application on 11.11.1982. Respondent no.4 filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The learned Commissioner took suo-moto cognizance and directed the Collector to examine the surplus area case of the petitioner in detail. The petitioner filed a revision, which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the respondent no.4 had no locus standi to file an application or an appeal. The Commissioner is an appellate forum and has no jurisdiction to take suo-moto notice. Neither the Financial Commissioner nor the Commissioner have pointed out any, error in the order determining the petitioners surplus area.
Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the other hand, submits that in case any error or illegality comes to the notice of a revenue officer, he would be obliged to take cognizance and/or refer it to the Financial Commissioner. The learned Commissioner took cognizance of an error in the surplus area order and directed the Collector to reconsider the matter. The Financial Commissioner upheld this order. As the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, the writ petition be dismissed.
Counsel for respondent no.4 submits that there is an error in calculating the surplus area of the petitioner and therefore, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner rightly directed the Collector to reassess the surplus area.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.
Respondent no.4 filed an application for allotment of surplus area alleging that the surplus area of the petitioner had not been correctly CWP No.3818 of 1984 3 calculated. His application was entertained by the Collector. Upon reappraisal of the surplus area order dated 23.11.1978, the Collector did not find any infirmity and filed the application. Respondent no.4 filed an appeal. The Commissioner exercised suo-moto powers, accepted the appeal and directed the Collector to examine the application in detail and in case of any error, the Collector could seek permission to review the surplus area order. A relevant extract of the order passed by the Commissioner would be appropriate :-
"A perusal of the file indicates that the orders of Collector of 11.11.1982 do not reveal any thing. It is arbitrary in the sense that it is not specific and elaborate. The Agrarian staff first gave a report on 5.4.1982 against the land owner and they changed the report on 9.6.1982. There is no detailed reasons as to on what grounds the discrepancies in the reports had occurred. The order of Collector of 23.10.1978 has not been referred to and it is not possible to understand as to how the calculations have been checked up. The amendment to rule 10 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules referred to in that file is about an illustration. This illustration is regarding land commanded by a non-perennial canal yielding only one crop. The specific allegation in this case is that the land of the land owner was yielding two crops and had assured irrigation. For that purpose, it will be necessary to check the facts by referring to the entries in the Girdawari and other revenue record. The calculations CWP No.3818 of 1984 4 showed on the file had not given any indication as to how the Collector arrived at this conclusion that there was no defect in the earlier calculation."
The Financial Commissioner upheld the order passed by the Commissioner by holding as under :-
"In the present case, the Collector, vide his impugned orders dated 11.11.1982 filed that complaint holding that there was no merits in it and the calculations made in respect of the land holding of Mahant Lakshmi Dhar in the first instance were correct. Respondent Munshi Ram challenged this decision of the Collector before the Additional Commissioner who treated that petition as an appeal and decided it vide his impugned orders dated 27.7.1983. The Additional Commissioner has rightly held that Munshi Ram respondent has no locus standi in this case and his claim for allotment of any surplus area that may be found with Mahanat Lakshmi Dhar petitioner is irrelevant and unjust."
Appeal, review and revision are provided in Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Section 18 of the Act, prescribes that provisions in regard to appeal, review and revision under this Act shall be the same, as provided in Sections 80,81,82,83 and 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. Section 80 of the Punjab Tenancy Act that prescribes the appellate fora, reads as follows :- CWP No.3818 of 1984 5
"Appeals- Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules thereunder, an appeal shall lie from an original or appellate order or decree made under this Act, by a Revenue Officer or Revenue Court, as follows, namely :-
(a) to the Collector when the order or decree is made by an Assistant Collector of either grade ;
(b) to the Commissioner when the order or decree is made by a Collector;
(c ) to the Financial Commissioner when the order or decree is made by a Commissioner -
Provided that -
(i)an appeal from an order or decree made by an Assistant Collector of the Ist grade specially empowered by name in that behalf by the State Government in a suit mentioned in the Ist group of Sub-section(3) of Section 77 shall lie to the Commissioner and not to the Collector;
(ii)when an original order or decree is confirmed on first appeal, a further appeal shall not lie;
(iii)when any such order or decree is modified or reversed on appeal by the Collector, the order or decree made by the Commissioner on further appeal, if any, to him shall be final."
A Commissioner, exercising powers under the Punjab Land CWP No.3818 of 1984 6 Reforms Act, is an appellate forum, circumscribed in the discharge of his jurisdiction by the statutory provision that confers powers. The power to call for, examine and revise proceedings and to take suo moto notice vests with the Financial Commissioner alone, under Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Section 84(2) however empowers the Commissioner or the Collector to call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by any Revenue Officer or Revenue Court under his control. Where the Commissioner or Collector, who has called for the record is of the opinion that proceedings taken or the order or decree made should be modified or reversed, he shall submit a report with his opinion on the case to the Financial Commissioner, who shall, thereafter, proceed in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (4), (5) and (6). A Commissioner, therefore, has jurisdiction to call for the record of any case disposed of by any Revenue Officer or Revenue Court under his control but does not have suo- moto jurisdiction to set aside such an order and to issue directions in respect thereof. As noticed herein above, the learned Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Collector and directed him to re-examine the surplus area case of the petitioner. This error of jurisdiction, however, need not detain this Court any further as it would not effect the ultimate outcome of this petition.
As and when, an error or illegality comes to the notice of a revenue officer, more particularly, where the error or illegality has the effect of reducing surplus area, it is the duty and obligation of every revenue officer to examine the matter and thereafter either seek permission, of his immediate superior to review the orders or forward a reference to the Financial Commissioner. The Commissioner, therefore, should have CWP No.3818 of 1984 7 forwarded a reference to the Financial Commissioner, with his comments. However, as the dispute was eventually brought before the Financial Commissioner and examined in detail, this error by the Commissioner would not require acceptance of the writ petition. The directions issued by the Commissioner are limited to the examination of any error in calculation. These directions have been affirmed by the Financial Commissioner. The Collector would, therefore, be required to appraise the calculations and in the case of any prima facie error in calculation, would be required to call upon the petitioner to justify the error after recourse to the procedure established under the Act.
As the impugned orders do not suffer from any such error, as would require interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, the writ petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs.
20.8.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA)
GS JUDGE
CWP No.3818 of 1984 8