{"id":102851,"date":"2008-08-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008"},"modified":"2015-04-13T16:13:12","modified_gmt":"2015-04-13T10:43:12","slug":"mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mahant Lakshmi Dhar Through vs Financial Commissioner on 20 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Mahant Lakshmi Dhar Through vs Financial Commissioner on 20 August, 2008<\/div>\n
CWP No.3818 of 1984                                                     1\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                    CHANDIGARH.\n\n                                       CWP No.3818 of 1984\n                                       Date of Decision: 20.8.2008\n\nMahant Lakshmi Dhar through\nhis legal representatives                                 .....Petitioner\n\n                                Vs.\n\nFinancial Commissioner, Taxation,Punjab,\nChandigarh and others                                     ....Respondents\n                             ....\n<\/pre>\n
CORAM :      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA\n\n                                ****\n\nPresent :    Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner.\n<\/pre>\n
             Mr.N.S. Pawar, Addl.A.G.Punjab for respondents no.1 to 3.
\n             Mr.Onkar Rai, Advocate for respondent no.4.\n<\/p>\n
                                …\n<\/p>\n
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)<\/p>\n
             The petitioner, now represented by his legal representatives<\/p>\n
prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the<\/p>\n
orders (Annexures P-5 and P-3) dated 31.5.1984 and 27.7.1983, passed by<\/p>\n
the Financial Commissioner and Additional Commissioner, respectively.<\/p>\n
             Proceedings under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) were initiated against the petitioner and<\/p>\n
an area measuring 18.2741 std. Hectares was declared surplus. Respondent<\/p>\n
no.4, apparently an ejected tenant of another landowner,               filed an<\/p>\n
application to the Collector for allotment of surplus area and also alleged<\/p>\n
that there was an error in calculation while determining the surplus area of<\/p>\n
the petitioner. The Collector, Agrarian, Dasuya examined the application<\/p>\n
but as he failed to discern any discrepancy or error in the surplus area order,
\n CWP No.3818 of 1984                                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
dismissed the application on 11.11.1982. Respondent no.4 filed an appeal<\/p>\n
before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The learned<\/p>\n
Commissioner took suo-moto cognizance and directed the Collector to<\/p>\n
examine the surplus area case of the petitioner in detail. The petitioner filed<\/p>\n
a revision, which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner.<\/p>\n
             Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the respondent no.4<\/p>\n
had no locus standi to file an application or an appeal. The Commissioner is<\/p>\n
an appellate forum and has no jurisdiction to take suo-moto notice. Neither<\/p>\n
the Financial Commissioner nor the Commissioner have pointed out any,<\/p>\n
error in the order determining the petitioners surplus area.<\/p>\n
             Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the other hand, submits that<\/p>\n
in case any error or illegality comes to the notice of a revenue officer, he<\/p>\n
would be obliged to take cognizance and\/or          refer it to the Financial<\/p>\n
Commissioner. The learned Commissioner took cognizance of an error in<\/p>\n
the surplus area order and directed the Collector to reconsider the matter.<\/p>\n
The Financial Commissioner upheld this order. As the impugned orders do<\/p>\n
not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, the writ petition be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
             Counsel for respondent no.4 submits that there is an error in<\/p>\n
calculating the surplus area of the petitioner and             therefore, the<\/p>\n
Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner rightly directed the<\/p>\n
Collector to reassess the surplus area.\n<\/p>\n
             I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the<\/p>\n
impugned orders.\n<\/p>\n
             Respondent no.4 filed an application for allotment of surplus<\/p>\n
area alleging that the surplus area of the petitioner had not been correctly
\n CWP No.3818 of 1984                                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
calculated. His application was entertained by the Collector. Upon<\/p>\n
reappraisal of the surplus area order dated 23.11.1978, the Collector did not<\/p>\n
find any infirmity and filed the application. Respondent no.4 filed an<\/p>\n
appeal. The Commissioner exercised suo-moto powers, accepted the appeal<\/p>\n
and directed the Collector to examine the application in detail and in case<\/p>\n
of any error, the Collector could seek permission to review the surplus area<\/p>\n
order. A relevant extract of the order passed by the Commissioner would<\/p>\n
be appropriate :-\n<\/p>\n
                    “A perusal of the file indicates that the orders of<\/p>\n
                    Collector of 11.11.1982 do not reveal any thing. It is<\/p>\n
                    arbitrary in the sense that it is not specific and elaborate.<\/p>\n
                    The Agrarian staff first gave a report on 5.4.1982 against<\/p>\n
                    the land owner and they changed the report on 9.6.1982.<\/p>\n
                    There is no detailed reasons as to on what grounds the<\/p>\n
                    discrepancies in the reports had occurred. The order of<\/p>\n
                    Collector of 23.10.1978 has not been referred to and it is<\/p>\n
                    not possible to understand as to how the calculations<\/p>\n
                    have been checked up. The amendment to rule 10 of the<\/p>\n
                    Punjab Land Reforms Rules referred to in that file is<\/p>\n
                    about an illustration. This illustration is regarding land<\/p>\n
                    commanded by a non-perennial canal yielding only one<\/p>\n
                    crop. The specific allegation in this case is that the land<\/p>\n
                    of the land owner was yielding two crops and had<\/p>\n
                    assured irrigation. For that purpose, it will be necessary<\/p>\n
                    to check the facts by referring to the entries in the<\/p>\n
                    Girdawari and other revenue record. The calculations
\n CWP No.3818 of 1984                                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
                  showed on the file had not given any indication as to how<\/p>\n
                  the Collector arrived at this conclusion that there was no<\/p>\n
                  defect in the earlier calculation.”<\/p>\n
            The Financial Commissioner upheld the order passed by the<\/p>\n
Commissioner by holding as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                  “In the present case, the Collector, vide his impugned<\/p>\n
                  orders dated 11.11.1982 filed that complaint holding that<\/p>\n
                  there was no merits in it and the calculations made in<\/p>\n
                  respect of the land holding of Mahant Lakshmi Dhar in<\/p>\n
                  the first instance were correct. Respondent Munshi Ram<\/p>\n
                  challenged this decision of the Collector before the<\/p>\n
                  Additional Commissioner who treated that petition as an<\/p>\n
                  appeal and decided it vide his impugned orders dated<\/p>\n
                  27.7.1983. The Additional Commissioner has rightly<\/p>\n
                  held that Munshi Ram respondent has no locus standi in<\/p>\n
                  this case and his claim for allotment of any surplus area<\/p>\n
                  that may be found with Mahanat Lakshmi Dhar petitioner<\/p>\n
                  is irrelevant and unjust.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Appeal, review and revision are provided in Section 18 of the<\/p>\n
Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’).<\/p>\n
Section 18 of the Act, prescribes that provisions in regard to appeal, review<\/p>\n
and revision under this Act shall be the same, as provided in Sections<\/p>\n
80,81,82,83 and 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. Section 80 of the<\/p>\n
Punjab Tenancy Act that prescribes the appellate fora, reads as follows :-
\n CWP No.3818 of 1984                                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
          “Appeals- Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules<\/p>\n
          thereunder, an appeal shall lie from an original or appellate<\/p>\n
          order or decree made under this Act, by a Revenue Officer or<\/p>\n
          Revenue Court, as follows, namely :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (a)    to the Collector when the order or decree is made<\/p>\n
                by an Assistant Collector of either grade ;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (b)    to the Commissioner when the order or decree is<\/p>\n
                made by a Collector;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (c )   to the Financial Commissioner when the order or<\/p>\n
                   decree is made by a Commissioner –<\/p>\n
                Provided that –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (i)an appeal from an order or decree made by an<\/p>\n
                   Assistant   Collector of the Ist          grade specially<\/p>\n
                   empowered by name in that behalf by the State<\/p>\n
                   Government in a suit mentioned in the Ist group of<\/p>\n
                   Sub-section(3) of Section 77 shall lie to the<\/p>\n
                   Commissioner and not to the Collector;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (ii)when an original order or decree is confirmed on first<\/p>\n
                   appeal, a further appeal shall not lie;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (iii)when any such order or decree is modified or<\/p>\n
                   reversed on appeal by the Collector, the order or<\/p>\n
                   decree made by the Commissioner on further appeal, if<\/p>\n
                   any, to him shall be final.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           A Commissioner, exercising powers under the Punjab Land
\n CWP No.3818 of 1984                                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
Reforms Act, is an appellate forum, circumscribed in the discharge of his<\/p>\n
jurisdiction by the statutory provision that confers powers. The power to<\/p>\n
call for, examine and revise proceedings and to take suo moto notice vests<\/p>\n
with the Financial Commissioner alone, under Section 84 of the Punjab<\/p>\n
Tenancy Act. Section 84(2) however empowers the Commissioner or the<\/p>\n
Collector to call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by<\/p>\n
any Revenue Officer or Revenue Court under his control. Where the<\/p>\n
Commissioner or Collector, who has called for the record is of the opinion<\/p>\n
that proceedings taken or the order or decree made should be modified or<\/p>\n
reversed, he shall submit a report with his opinion on the case to the<\/p>\n
Financial Commissioner, who shall, thereafter, proceed in accordance with<\/p>\n
the provisions of sub-sections (4), (5) and (6). A Commissioner, therefore,<\/p>\n
has jurisdiction to call for the record of any case disposed of by any<\/p>\n
Revenue Officer or Revenue Court under his control but does not have suo-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
moto jurisdiction to set aside such an order and to issue directions in respect<\/p>\n
thereof. As noticed herein above, the learned Commissioner set aside the<\/p>\n
order passed by the Collector and directed him to re-examine the surplus<\/p>\n
area case of the petitioner. This error of jurisdiction, however, need not<\/p>\n
detain this Court any further as it would not effect the ultimate outcome of<\/p>\n
this petition.\n<\/p>\n
                 As and when, an error or illegality comes to the notice of a<\/p>\n
revenue officer, more particularly, where the error or illegality has the effect<\/p>\n
of reducing surplus area, it is the duty and obligation of every revenue<\/p>\n
officer to examine the matter and thereafter either seek permission, of his<\/p>\n
immediate superior to review the orders or forward a reference to the<\/p>\n
Financial Commissioner. The Commissioner, therefore,              should have
\n CWP No.3818 of 1984                                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
forwarded a reference to the Financial Commissioner, with his comments.<\/p>\n
However, as the dispute was eventually brought before the           Financial<\/p>\n
Commissioner and examined in detail, this error by the Commissioner<\/p>\n
would not require acceptance of the writ petition. The directions issued by<\/p>\n
the Commissioner are limited to the            examination of any error in<\/p>\n
calculation. These directions have been affirmed by the Financial<\/p>\n
Commissioner. The Collector would, therefore, be required to appraise the<\/p>\n
calculations and in the case of any prima facie error in calculation, would<\/p>\n
be required to call upon the petitioner to justify the error after recourse to<\/p>\n
the procedure established under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
             As the impugned orders do not suffer from any such error, as<\/p>\n
would require interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, the writ<\/p>\n
petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20.8.2008                                             (RAJIVE BHALLA)\nGS                                                         JUDGE\n CWP No.3818 of 1984   8<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Mahant Lakshmi Dhar Through vs Financial Commissioner on 20 August, 2008 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102851","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMahant Lakshmi Dhar Through vs Financial Commissioner on 20 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahant Lakshmi Dhar Through vs Financial Commissioner on 20 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-13T10:43:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahant Lakshmi Dhar Through vs Financial Commissioner on 20 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-13T10:43:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1554,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Mahant Lakshmi Dhar Through vs Financial Commissioner on 20 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-13T10:43:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahant Lakshmi Dhar Through vs Financial Commissioner on 20 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mahant Lakshmi Dhar Through vs Financial Commissioner on 20 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahant Lakshmi Dhar Through vs Financial Commissioner on 20 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-13T10:43:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahant Lakshmi Dhar Through vs Financial Commissioner on 20 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-13T10:43:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008"},"wordCount":1554,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008","name":"Mahant Lakshmi Dhar Through vs Financial Commissioner on 20 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-13T10:43:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-lakshmi-dhar-through-vs-financial-commissioner-on-20-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahant Lakshmi Dhar Through vs Financial Commissioner on 20 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102851","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=102851"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102851\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102851"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102851"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102851"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}