Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (TAXATION)PUNJAB & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HARBHAJAN SINGH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/03/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (4) 326 1996 SCALE (3)561
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both the sides.
This appeal relates to the grant of 11 kanals 7 marlas
of land in revenue estate of Karbara in Ludhiana District.
The respondent and his brother Jawahar Singh, s/o Gurdit
Singh being displaced persons, his brother had applied for
transfer of 7 kanals 15 marlas. It was accordingly granted
to him and it became final by proceedings dated August 17,
1966. Thereafter, in the collusion with the revenue
officials the respondent got his name mutated in the records
with regard to the land in the year 1967 and asked for
assignment of the same under the Displaced Persons
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short, the
’Act’). One Mr. J.S. Quami, Settlement Officer granted
assignment to the respondent on August 29, 1969. Thereafter,
when it was noticed that the mutation was obtained by
playing fraud, the self-same officer as Settlement
Commissioner, by proceedings dated 16.9.1971, set aside the
order. It came to be challenged by filing of a revision
under Section 33 of the Act. The Financial Commissioner
(Taxation), Government of Punjab upheld the cancellation by
his proceedings dated November 25, 1971. When the respondent
filed the writ petition, the learned single Judge by order
dated January 12, 1983, dismissed the writ petition. The
Division Bench by judgment and order dated January 12, 1989
in LPA No.526/82 has set aside the order on the finding that
J.S. Qaumi having exercised the power as Settlement Officer
has no jurisdiction to sit over the same order as appellate
authority as Chief Settlement Commissioner. Therefore, the
order is vitiated by error of law.
The question is: whether the order passed by J.S. Qaumi
as Settlement Officer could be corrected by the Financial
Commissioner (Taxation) under Section 33 of the Act? Section
33 reads as under:
<SLS>
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
"33. The Central Government may at any time call for the
record of any proceeding under this Act and may pass such
order in relation thereto as in its opinion the
circumstances of the case require and as is not inconsistent
with any of the provisions contained in this Act or the
rules made thereunder.’
<SLE>
A reading thereof would clearly indicate that the
Financial Commissioner (Taxation) as a delegate of the
Central Government has power to revise any order after
calling for record in relation thereto and if in his opinion
the circumstances of the case require and the order passed
is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and rules
made thereunder, he has got power to correct the same. It is
true, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
respondent, that J.S. Qaumi having granted assignment as
Settlement Officer, could not have sit over his order as
Chief Settlement Commissioner. This is the settled legal
position and needs no reiteration. This Court in Gulab
Ajwani & Ors. vs. Saraswati Bai [(1977) 3 SCC 581] had laid
the law. But the question is not resolved with the above
finding alone. As stated earlier, the Financial Commissioner
(Taxation) as a delegate of the Central Government has been
invested with the power under Section 33 to revise any
orders. All the authorities have half that after his brother
Jawhar Singh had been granted assignment granted to them,
the respondent in collusion with lower level revenue
officials hat played fraud and obtained another assignment.
The Commissioner under Section 33, therefore, has power to
correct the same in his revisional jurisdiction though it
was brought to his notice by way of revision by the
respondent himself treating it to be a suo review. Under
these circumstances, the High Court was not justified in
quashing the orders.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the
Division bench is set aside and that of the single judge and
the authorities upheld. No costs.