1996 JTR(SC) 651
1996 AIR(SC) 3287 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 2429 ; 1996 3 CCC(SC) 40 ; 1996 2 CLT(SC) 306 ; 1996 3 CurCC(SC) 40 ; 1996 DNJ 286 ; 1996 4 JT 326 ; 1996 PLJ 266 ; 1996 3 PLR(SC) 223 ; 1996 2 RRR 457 ; 1996 3 Scale 561 ; 1996 9 SCC 281 ; 1996 3 SCR 812 ; 1996 KHC 1188 ; 1996 5 Supreme 136
1996(5) Supreme 136
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
The Financial Commissioner (Taxation) Punjab & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Harbhajan Singh -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6905 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No 10975 of 1989)
Decided on 22-3-1996
Act Referred :DISPLACED PERSONS COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION ACT : S.33
A) The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, operates as the governing statute for the rehabilitation and compensation of displaced persons, and Section 33 of the Act specifically empowers the Central Government to call for the record of any proceeding and pass such order as the circumstances of the case require, provided such order is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder. In this matter, the impugned order was passed by an authority who, having acted as a Settlement Officer in granting the initial assignment, was subsequently elevated to the position of Chief Settlement Commissioner and sought to correct his own earlier order through revisional jurisdiction under Section 33. The financial and administrative dynamics of this statutory power are at the heart of the dispute, as the Act contemplates intervention by a higher delegate of the Central Government to ensure compliance and rectify irregularities in the disposition of land allotted to displaced persons.
B) Key legal principles include that an officer who grants an initial assignment under the Act cannot later sit in appeal over that same order, as this constitutes a error of law; however, the Central Government, acting through its delegated authority such as the Financial Commissioner (Taxation), retains revisional power under Section 33 to correct irregular orders where circumstances so require, irrespective of the identity of the original adjudicator.
Facts of the case:
A displaced person and his brother, who was also a displaced person, were granted 7 Kanals 15 marlas of land in revenue estate Karbara in Ludhiana District, with the mutation obtained fraudulently in 1967. An officer as Settlement Officer granted assignment to the respondent in 1969, but the same officer as Settlement Commissioner set aside the order in 1971. The Financial Commissioner (Taxation) under Section 33 upheld the cancellation, which was challenged through a writ petition ultimately decided by the High Court, which quashed the corrective order on the ground of jurisdictional error.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench held that the Settlement Officer, having granted the assignment, could not validly exercise appellate authority as Chief Settlement Commissioner to correct the order, and therefore the High Court was not justified in quashing the corrective proceedings initiated by the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) under Section 33.
Issues:
Whether the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) could validly exercise revisional powers under Section 33 to correct an order passed by an officer who was originally the Settlement Officer and later acted as the appellate authority, and whether the High Court was correct in quashing the corrective order on grounds of jurisdictional defect.
Ratio Decidendi:
The revisional power under Section 33 of the Act is exercisable by the Central Governments delegate where the order suffers from irregularities, even if the original order was passed by an officer who is subsequently elevated to an appellate role, and the High Court cannot interfere with such valid revisional correction on the ground of error of law committed by the same officer in a different capacity.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the Division Bench order is set aside, and the orders of the single Judge and the authorities upholding the cancellation are restored, with no costs awarded.
A) The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, operates as the governing statute for the rehabilitation and compensation of displaced persons, and Section 33 of the Act specifically empowers the Central Government to call for the record of any proceeding and pass such order as the circumstances of the case require, provided such order is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder. In this matter, the impugned order was passed by an authority who, having acted as a Settlement Officer in granting the initial assignment, was subsequently elevated to the position of Chief Settlement Commissioner and sought to correct his own earlier order through revisional jurisdiction under Section 33. The financial and administrative dynamics of this statutory power are at the heart of the dispute, as the Act contemplates intervention by a higher delegate of the Central Government to ensure compliance and rectify irregularities in the disposition of land allotted to displaced persons.
B) Key legal principles include that an officer who grants an initial assignment under the Act cannot later sit in appeal over that same order, as this constitutes a error of law; however, the Central Government, acting through its delegated authority such as the Financial Commissioner (Taxation), retains revisional power under Section 33 to correct irregular orders where circumstances so require, irrespective of the identity of the original adjudicator.
Facts of the case:
A displaced person and his brother, who was also a displaced person, were granted 7 Kanals 15 marlas of land in revenue estate Karbara in Ludhiana District, with the mutation obtained fraudulently in 1967. An officer as Settlement Officer granted assignment to the respondent in 1969, but the same officer as Settlement Commissioner set aside the order in 1971. The Financial Commissioner (Taxation) under Section 33 upheld the cancellation, which was challenged through a writ petition ultimately decided by the High Court, which quashed the corrective order on the ground of jurisdictional error.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench held that the Settlement Officer, having granted the assignment, could not validly exercise appellate authority as Chief Settlement Commissioner to correct the order, and therefore the High Court was not justified in quashing the corrective proceedings initiated by the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) under Section 33.
Issues:
Whether the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) could validly exercise revisional powers under Section 33 to correct an order passed by an officer who was originally the Settlement Officer and later acted as the appellate authority, and whether the High Court was correct in quashing the corrective order on grounds of jurisdictional defect.
Ratio Decidendi:
The revisional power under Section 33 of the Act is exercisable by the Central Governments delegate where the order suffers from irregularities, even if the original order was passed by an officer who is subsequently elevated to an appellate role, and the High Court cannot interfere with such valid revisional correction on the ground of error of law committed by the same officer in a different capacity.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the Division Bench order is set aside, and the orders of the single Judge and the authorities upholding the cancellation are restored, with no costs awarded.
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both the sides.
2. 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 has 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. Qaumi, 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, 1989, 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.
3. 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 :
"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."
4. 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. v. Saraswati Bai & Ors.1, 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 held that after his brother Jawahar Singh had been granted assignment granted to them, the respondent in collusion with lower level revenue officials had 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 motu review. Under these circumstances, the High Court was not justified in quashing the orders.
5. 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.
Appeal allowed.
*******