Civil Writ Petition No.16669 of 1990 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.16669 of 1990
Date of Decision:-November 17,2009
Harpal Singh (dead) through his LR Sumit Singh and Ravel Singh
and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Argued by: Mr.A.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Harminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Ajaib Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr.H.S.Giani, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 7.
Mr.U.K.Agnihotri, Advocate for respondent No.8.
Mr.S.K.Pipat, Senior Advocate with Mr.Shiv Raj Malik and
Mr.Rishi Kaushal, Advocates for respondent No.9.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The matrix of the facts culminating in the commencement,
relevant for disposal, of present writ petition and emanating from the
record of the case is that the surplus area case of big landowners
Harpal Singh and Harjit Kaur (deceased) was originally determined
by the Collector on 29.1.1960 (Annexure P1). The surplus area was
allotted by the then Collector Agrarian vide order dated 14.8.1974
(Annexure P3). Thereafter, by an order dated 4.5.1977, the Collector
recommended to the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, for
Civil Writ Petition No.16669 of 1990 2
permitting him to review the allotment order dated 14.8.1974
(Annexure P3), so that the khasra numbers already purchased by the
tenants and included in the tenants’ permissible area were allowed to
be retained by the tenants. Reference was declined by the
Commissioner vide order dated 31.8.1977.
2. However, the revision petition filed by Harpal Singh and
others was accepted by the Financial Commissioner and the matter
was remanded back to the Commissioner for thorough examination
before passing the fresh order vide order dated 5.4.1983 (Annexure
P4), but the Commissioner again declined the reference vide order
dated 13.8.1984 (Annexure P6).
3. Petitioners again filed revision petition against the order
(Annexure P6) before the Financial Commissioner, but the same was
dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable vide impugned
order dated 8.8.1990 (Annexure P7), the operative part of which is in
the following manner:-
“I have heard the ld.counsels for the parties and
perused the record. The ld. Commissioner,
Jalandhar, by his order dated 13.8.1984, has
refused to give permission to the Collector to
review the orders of his predecessor. Under
Section 82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 it has
been specifically provided that no appeal shall lie
from an order refusing to review or confirming on
review a previous order. In view of this the revision
petition is not maintainable and is dismissed on this
short ground.”
Civil Writ Petition No.16669 of 1990 3
4. The review petition (Annexure P8) filed by the petitioners
was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide impugned
order dated 5.11.1990 (Annexure P9).
5. The petitioners did not feel satisfied with the impugned
orders (Annexures P7 and P9) and filed the present writ petition.
That is how I am seized of the matter.
6. At the very out set, it will not be out of place to mention
here that the objection of maintainability of the revision petition was
also raised in the earlier revision petition between the parties decided
vide order (Annexure P4), which was repelled by the Financial
Commissioner in the following manner:-
“As regard the contention of learned counsel for
respondent No.7 that the revision is not competent
against an order refusing to grant permission, this
plea is not based on any provision of law. Section
82 (3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, which is
applicable to the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972
by virtue of section 18 of the letter Act provides that
an appeal shall not lie from the order refusing to
review, or conforming on review, a previous order.
However, Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act,
1887 which is also read with section 18 of the Act,
1972 provides that the Financial Commissioner
may at any time call for the record of any case
pending before or disposed of by any Revenue
Officer or Revenue Court subordinate to him and
shall pass an appropriate order. Thus it is clear that
Civil Writ Petition No.16669 of 1990 4an appeal is of course not maintainable against an
order refusing to review, or confirming on review, a
previous order; but the Financial Commissioner
cannot be said to be not competent to revise such
an order.
In view of the above discussion, I accept the
revision petition, set-aside the order dated
31.8.1977 of the Commissioner, Jullundur Divn.
and remand the case to him for thorough
examination before passing a fresh order. As
regards the contentions of the Naib Tehsildar
Agrarian, the Commissioner shall take all the
submissions made by him on behalf of the State
into consideration and shall also consider in detail,
all other points to be raised by the parties before
him.”
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having
gone through the record of the case with their valuable help and after
considering the matter deeply, to me, as the impugned orders
(Annexures P7 and P9) cannot legally be maintained, therefore, the
present writ petition deserves to be accepted, for the reasons
mentioned here-in-below.
8. As indicated earlier, the Financial Commissioner vide
impugned order (Annexure P7) has dismissed the revision petition
mainly on the ground that “no appeal shall lie from an order refusing
to review or confirming on review a previous order. In view of this the
revision petition is not maintainable and is dismissed on this short
Civil Writ Petition No.16669 of 1990 5
ground.”
9. Here, to my mind, the Financial Commissioner fell in
grave error in this respect. Because according to section 18 of the
Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as “the
Reforms Act”), the provisions in regard to appeal, review and revision
under this act shall, so far as may be, the same as provided in
Sections 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887
(hereinafter to be referred as “the Tenancy Act”). Section 80 deals
with the appeals. Likewise, Section 82 postulates that “a Revenue
Officer, as such, may either of own motion or on the application of
any party interested, review, and on so reviewing modify, reverse or
confirm any order passed by Himself or by any of predecessors in
office, subject to the limitation contained in proviso to this Section.”
According to section 82 (3), an appeal shall not lie from an order
refusing to review, or confirming on review, a previous order.
10. Sequelly, section 84 of the Tenancy Act posits that “the
Financial Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any
case pending before or, disposed of by any Revenue Officer or
Revenue Court subordinate to him and if after examining a record
called for by himself under sub-section (1) or submitted to him under
sub-section (3) the Financial Commissioner is of opinion that it is
expedient to interfere with the proceedings or the order or decree, it
shall pass an order accordingly.”
11. Meaning thereby, section 82 authorizes any Revenue
Officer to review his or any order passed by his predecessors in
office. No doubt, according to sub-section (3) of this section, an
appeal shall not lie from an order refusing to review, or confirming on
Civil Writ Petition No.16669 of 1990 6
review, a previous order by Revenue Officer. Be that as it may, but
that does not preclude the Financial Commissioner in any manner to
exercise his revisional power as contemplated under section 84 of
the Tenancy Act. Such revisional powers of the Financial
Commissioner conferred by section 84 of the Tenancy Act are
entirely distinct, independent, not subject to and cannot legally be
curtailed in view of power of review by any Revenue Officer under
section 82 (3) of the Tenancy Act. As stated above, a similar
objection was raised in earlier revision petition between the parties
decided by the Financial Commissioner vide order (Annexure P4),
which was repelled with the observation that an appeal is of course
not maintainable against an order refusing to review, or confirming
on review, a previous order but the Financial Commissioner cannot
be said to be not competent to revise such order” and the revision
petition was accepted.
12. In this view of the matter and legal position under
sections 82 and 84 of the Tenancy Act, it cannot possibly be saith
that the Financial Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to
entertain the revision petition as has been held by him in the
impugned order (Annexure P7). Consequently, it is held that the
revision petition against the impugned order dated 13.8.1984
(Annexure P6) was very much maintainable before the Financial
Commissioner as envisaged under section 84 of the Tenancy Act.
Once it is so held, then impugned order of review (Annexure P9)
cannot also be maintained in this manner on the same analogy as
discussed here-in-above.
13. In this view of the matter and for the reasons recorded
Civil Writ Petition No.16669 of 1990 7
above, the present writ petition is accepted and the impugned orders
(Annexures P7 and P9) are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted
back to the Financial Commissioner for deciding the revision petition
on merits afresh in accordance with law within six months positively.
14. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear
before the concerned Financial Commissioner on 22.12.2009.
November 17,2009 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No