Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sujan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 30 April, 2009
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3424 OF 1982 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 30 , 2009
Sujan Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. S. C. Kapoor, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Sujan Singh, petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.3424 of 1982 is a big land owner from Village Khem Karan, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar. He has filed this writ petition, challenging the direction given by the Financial Commissioner to the Collector, Amritsar to go into the merits of the case taking into account the validity of the order dated 26.3.1982. Through this order passed under Punjab Land Reforms Act, land measuring 280 kanals was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3424 OF 1982 :{ 2 }:
declared surplus.
The grievance of the petitioner is that order dated 26.3.1982 passed by Collector, Patti, was never under challenge before the Financial Commissioner. In fact, the Financial Commissioner has passed this order while dealing with three revision petitions, challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, remanding the case to the Collector, who had earlier declared 15 standard acres of land of the petitioner as surplus on 20.7.1970.
Himmat Singh and Sehdev Singh, petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos.3425 and 3426 of 1982, are sons of Sujan Singh. Sujan Singh had transferred 1/3rd of his land to each of his two sons and had kept 1/3rd share with him. The issues, being same in all the three writ petitions and the grievance being identical, the writ petitions are being decided together through this common order.
Even after transfer of 1/3rd land to each of his son, Sujan Singh continued to be a big land owner. The Collector (SDM, Civil), Patti, declared 49 standard acres of the land of Sujan Singh as surplus on 3.5.1961 under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short, "the Tenures Act"). Sujan Singh filed an appeal against this order before Commissioner, Jalandhar, who remanded the case back for fresh decision vide his order dated 6.12.1961. It was observed that original record of rights of mutation of the transferred shares by Sujan Singh to his sons may be looked into. S.D.M., Patti, passed a fresh order dated 23.7.1970, declaring 15 standard acres, 8-1/4 units of the land as surplus area. Sujan Singh and his sons accordingly filed appeal before Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, which the Commissioner accepted on 29.9.1975.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3424 OF 1982 :{ 3 }:
The Commissioner again remanded the case back to the Collector, Agrarian, Patti, for fresh decision, after working out land holdings of petitioner, Sujan Singh, as on 15.4.1953. Petitioner, Sujan Singh and his sons, filed revision petitions before the Financial Commissioner, challenging the order of remand passed by the Commissioner on the ground that he had failed to take, purely a legal question, into consideration, which went to the root of the matter and their jurisdiction to determine the surplus area or permissible area into standard acres. These revision petitions were admitted.
During this time, Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as "the Reforms Act") came into being. Some major changes were made in the manner and in regard to the concept of surplus and permissible areas. It appears that petitioner, Sujan Singh, and his sons filed returns under the Reforms Act maintaining that their surplus area had not been determined under the Tenures Act before coming into force the Reforms Act. Collector (Sub Divisional Magistrate), Patti, acting under the Reforms Act passed an order on 26.3.1982, allowing petitioner, Sujan Singh and his four sons, five units and after excluding the permissible area, declared 280 kanals as surplus. As per the counsel for the petitioners, this 280 kanals declared as surplus was allotted under the Punjab Land Surplus Scheme, 1973 and the actual possession has also been delivered to the said allottees by dispossessing petitioner, Sujan Singh and his sons. It is stated that this order, declaring the land surplus and utilizing the same has not been put to any challenge by any one. The submission, accordingly, is that the surplus area of petitioner, Sujan Singh and his sons had not been CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3424 OF 1982 :{ 4 }:
determined under the Tenures Act as the Commissioner had remanded the case for fresh decision against which the revision was pending before the Financial Commissioner. Petitioner, Sujan Singh and his sons were in possession of the entire area, when order dated 26.3.1982 was made. By that day, neither any surplus area was determined nor any tenant re-settled under the Tenures Act.
The revisions filed by petitioner Sujan Singh and his sons came up for hearing before the Financial Commissioner on 20.5.1982. A day before the hearing, an application (Annexure P-5) was moved stating that the remand order had become inoperative and the Collector would not have any jurisdiction to determine the surplus area under the Tenures Act in view of the order dated 26.3.1982 of the Collector, Agrarian, passed under the Reforms Act. Prayer was made for setting-aside the remand order. This was in addition to the grounds already urged in the revision petition. On the asking of Financial Commissioner, copy of order dated 26.3.1982 was produced before him. It is averred that the Financial Commissioner did not hear the arguments and dismissed the revision petition vide an impugned order, which is branded as self contradictory and the one which is based on extraneous and legally untenable grounds. Through this order dated 20.5.1982 (Annexure P-6), the Financial Commissioner had remanded the case to the Collector for re-decision after going into the merits of the case and taking into account the validity of the order passed by the Collector, Agrarian, Patti, dated 26.3.1982 (Annexure P-4). The order, Annexure P-6, passed by the Financial Commissioner, thus, is put to challenge by Sujan Singh and his two sons through these three writ CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3424 OF 1982 :{ 5 }:
petitions.
Mr.S.C.Kapoor, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, contends that the Financial Commissioner was not justified in remanding the case to Collector to see the validity of the order, Annexure P-4, which was not under challenge in the revisions before him. Counsel submits that only remand order passed by the Commissioner against the order passed by the Collector, declaring the land of petitioner, Sujan Singh, as surplus was required to be considered. The counsel says that the Financial Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction by passing the impugned order, requiring the validity of order to be checked. Learned counsel would also contend that Financial Commissioner could not have passed this order, when prayer was made before him for withdrawing the revision petitions, pending adjudication before him. As per the counsel, the Financial Commissioner certainly could not have asked the Collector to go into the validity of the order, which was not under challenge or consideration before him. The counsel, thus, submits that the writ petitions would deserve to be allowed on these short grounds.
The line of submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the first blush would appear very attractive but deeper analysis thereof would show that even if this is conceded, it would not make any difference to the existing position in any manner. Collector, Patti, had declared 15 standard acres of land belonging to petitioner, Sujan Singh, as surplus on 20.7.1970. Commissioner had remanded the case back to the Collector on 20.9.1975. Against the order of remand, revisions were filed, in which the impugned order now has been passed. Even if the prayer made by the learned CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3424 OF 1982 :{ 6 }:
counsel is accepted and these revision petitions are due to be dismissed as withdrawn, the effect would be that the remand order passed by the Commissioner dated 20.9.1975 would revive. Accordingly, the Collector would be required to re-decide the case of surplus of petitioner Sujan Singh and his sons in terms of the order passed by the Commissioner dated 20.9.1975. It would, thus, mean that the case of surplus of petitioner Sujan Singh and his sons would require to be re-determined by Collector, Patti, under the provisions of the Tenures Act. This is the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, which is impugned through the present writ petitions. Difference is that instead of dismissing the revisions as withdrawn, the Financial Commissioner has dismissed these with direction to the Collector. Through impugned order, Annexure P-6, the Financial Commissioner has directed the Collector to go into the merits of the case.
Financial Commissioner was justified in observing that case was remanded to the Collector by the Commissioner to probe further into certain aspects of the case but Collector Patti, started fresh proceedings to determine surplus area of petitioner, Sujan Singh, under the Reforms Act. The Financial Commissioner has also rightly observed that the Collector should have realised that the cases of the petitioners were already pending before him under the Tenures Act. He accordingly dismissed the revision petitions with direction to the Collector to go into the merits of the case by taking into account the validity of the order dated 26.3.1982 (Annexure P-4). Whether these revision petitions are dismissed on merits or as withdrawn, the effect would remain the same.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3424 OF 1982 :{ 7 }:
It appears that petitioner, Sujan Singh and his sons are making desperate efforts to somehow save themselves of the order dated 26.3.1982 (Annexure P-4). Thus, the issue is if the Commissioner could issue direction to the Collector to go into the validity of the order dated 26.3.1982 or not, when it was not challenged. The counsel for the petitioners ofcouse contends that the Financial Commissioner could not have asked the Collector to see the validity of the order dated 26.3.1982.
Could the case of the petitioners be dealt with under the Reforms Act is the question which would arise?.
The surplus cases of the petitioners were pending adjudication under the Tenures Act, when their cases were dealt with by the Collector under the Reforms Act. Section 28 of the Reforms Act dealing repeals and savings would regulate the files of the pending cases. It provides that the repeal of the Tenures Act shall not effect the proceedings for determination of surplus area pending immediately before the commencement of this Act (Reforms Act), which are to be continued and disposed of as if this Act (Reforms Act) has not been passed and the surplus area so determined is to vest in and be utilized by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the Reforms Act. Thus, it is quite obvious that the surplus proceedings, which were in progress in the case of the petitioners were to be completed and disposed of under the Tenures Act even when the Reforms Act came into being. As per the saving clause, these proceedings were required to be continued under the Tenures Act. The Financial Commissioner, thus, was justified in questioning the Collector as to how he acted under the Reforms Act.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3424 OF 1982 :{ 8 }:
Financial Commissioner has suo-motu power to act in this regard while considering appeal, review or revision. Section 20 of the Tenures Act and Section 18 of the Reforms Act, make a provision in regard to appeal, review and revision under these Acts which are identical. These provide that powers of the Financial Commissioner would be same as given under Sections 80 to 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act lays down that the Financial Commissioner has the power at any time to call for record of any case pending before or disposed of by any revenue officer or revenue Court subordinate to him and if after examination of the record, he is of the opinion that it is expedient to interfere with the proceedings or the order or decree on any ground on which the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction may under the law for the time being in force interfered with the proceedings etc., then he may pass such order as he thinks fit in the case. Financial Commissioner is, thus, given wide powers in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Once it was noticed that the Collector apparently was not justified in passing the order dated 26.3.1982 (Annexure P-4), the Financial Commissioner, in my considered opinion, was fully competent to interfere and issue the directions as contained in the impugned order (Annexure P-6). Financial Commissioner in exercise of his suo motu power has directed the Collector to go into the validity of order, Annexure P-4. He would have the power to interfere in cases which are disposed of. Thus, even if the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners is accepted that the Financial Commissioner ought to have dismissed the revision petition as withdrawn as prayed for, he still could have CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3424 OF 1982 :{ 9 }:
competently issued direction to examine the validity of the order dated 26.3.1982 (Annexure P-4), while exercising suo-motu power available to him under both the statutes. Action of the Collector in dealing with the case of petitioners under Reforms Act was clearly invalid and was needed to be corrected. Suo motu revision powers are meant to be used in such like situation. In this case, notice of motion was issued only as regard the direction of the Financial Commissioner, requiring the Collector to go into the merits of the case, taking into account the validity of the order dated 26.3.1982. Obviously, the Court was not inclined to go into the aspect of remand of the case to Collector as was directed by the Financial Commissioner but was to examine if direction could be issued to the Collector to see the validity of the order dated 26.3.1982 or not. As observed above, the Financial Commissioner, while exercising suo- motu power was well within his rights to issue direction to the Collector to examine the validity of the order, Annexure P-4, passed under the Reforms Act.
There is no merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed.
April 30 , 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE