Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Singh vs The Financial Commissioner, Revenue ... on 9 March, 1994
Equivalent citations: AIR1995P&H138, AIR 1995 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 138, (1994) 2 LANDLR 448, 1994 REVLR 1 564, (1994) 2 RRR 327, (1994) 2 PUN LR 474
ORDER
1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue and Secretary to Govt., Punjab, Rehabilitation Department with delegated powers of Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short, the Act), dated August 2, 1980 in this petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab vide Order, dated April 21, 1971 found that the petitioner was eligible for transfer of land measuring 15 Marias out of Khasra No. 5446 against sale price of Rs. 15,000/-. The petitioner was directed to deposit the price according to rules. The petitioner challenged the order of the Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, dated April 21, 1971 in appeal before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab. The appeal was dismissed vide order, dated August 17, 1971 observing thus:--
"In the circumstances discussed above, I see no force in the appeal. Even the price of Rs. 1,000/- per marla determined by the Authorised Settlement Commissioner is a concessional price and there is ho reason to revise the same. Similarly, it has been correctly ordered that area measuring 15 marlas out of Khasra No. 5446 min should be transferred to the appellant at a price of Rs. 15,000/-.
As already observed above, the remaining area, if any, shall be retrieved and disposed of according to law and rules at an early date."
3. Order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab dated August 17, 1971 was challenged in revision under Section 33 of the Act through Miscellaneous Rehabilitation No.21 of 1971-72. The same was dismissed vide order, dated November 16, 1971 observing thus :--
"Besides, the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner has not given any finding on the eligibility of the petitioner to purchase the land, which is alleged to have been determined on the basis of doubtful revenue record. This point should not have been left untouched. Anyhow, since offer has already been made to the petitioner to purchase 15 marlas of land for Rs. 15,000/- at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per marla, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage."
4. A suo motu reference was made under Section 33 of the Act for setting aside order, dated November 29, 1968 under which the petitioner was found eligible for transfer of the land and the subsequent orders passed by the Settlement Commissioner, Punjab and the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, dated April 21, 1971 and August 17, 1971 respectively. The delegatee of the Central Government accepted the reference and set aside the orders of the Settlement Commissioner and Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab dated April 21, 1971 and August 17, 1971 respectively observing thus :--
"In view of the above discussion, I accept the suo motu reference of the Rehabilitation Department under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and set aside the orders of the Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated the 21st April, 1971 and August 17, 1971 respectively."
5. Aggrieved against the order of the delegatee of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act, the petitioner has come to this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delegatee of the Central Government could not review order of the delegatee of the Central Government, dated November 16, 1971. There is no provision, under the Act authorising the delegatee of the Central Government to review the order of an Officer delegated the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act. He submitted that the petitioner has been found entitled to purchase 15 marlas of land against the sale price of Rs. 15,000/- by the Settle-
ment Commissioner, vide order, dated April 21, 1971. This order was affirmed in appeal by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, vide order dated August 17, 1971 and the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was affirmed by the delegatee of the Central Government vide order, dated November 16, 1971. There is a substance in the submission made. As observed earlier, the petitioner was found eligible for transfer of land measuring 15 Marias out of Khasra No. 5446 against a sale price of Rs. 15,000/-by the Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, vide order, dated April 21, 1971. The order of the Settlement Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner in appeal on numerous grounds but the appeal was dismissed and the order of the Settlement Commissioner was affirmed. The appellate order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner was challenged in a petition under Section 33 of the Act and the same was dismissed on November 16, 1971 The order of the delegatee of the Central Government attained finality and the State, if aggrieved against the same, could challenge it through a writ petition under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Indisputably, the orders of the inferior Tribunal viz. Settlement Commissioner and Chief Settlement Commissioner merged in the order of the Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab, who was exercising the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act. On a suo motu reference, the delegatee of the Central Government has set aside the orders of the Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated April 21, 1971 and August 17, 1971 respectively. It was not brought to his notice by any of the parties that the orders of the Settlement Commissioner and that of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated April 21, 1971 and August 17, 1971 respectively have merged in the order of the delegatee of the Central Government exercising powers under Section 33 of the Act. If it had been brought to the notice of the delegatee of the Centra! Government under Section 33 of the Act that these orders have been merged in the order of the delegatee of the Central Government, probably he would not have set aside these orders. It is unfortunate that the parties or their counsel did not bring the correct facts to the notice of the Authority exercising the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act. As I have held earlier that orders of the Settlement Commissioner and the 'Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated April 21, 1971 and August 17, 1971 respectively have merged in the order passed by the delegatee of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act on November 16, 1971, another Officer of co-ordinating rank purportedly exercising the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act could not set aside the order of his Officer exercising the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act. The delegatee of the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Act had affirmed these orders when he dismissed the revision petition in limine and it was not open to the delegatee purportedly exercising the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act to set aside the orders of the Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner, which had already been merged in the order of the Authority exercising the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act. The order under challenge cannot be sustained on the simple gound alone.
7. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and the order of the delegatee of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act passed in Misc.
Rehabilitation No. 118 of 1974-75 on August 2, 1980 is set aside.
8. Petition allowed.