Land & Rent Law
1
ROLE AND STATUS OF RENT CONTROLLER
&
CLASSES AND POWERS OF REVENUE OFFICERS
Submitted To:
Submitted By:
Dr. Nancy Sharma
Harkiran Singh Brar 87/10 VIth Semester
Land & Rent Law
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I owe a great many thanks to a great many people who helped and supported me during the writing of this project. My deepest thanks to my Lecturer, Dr. Nancy Sharma, the Guide of the project for guiding me and correcting various documents of mine with attention and care. She has taken pain to go through the project and make necessary corrections as and when needed. I would also thank my Institution and my faculty members without whom this project would have been a distant reality. I also extend my heartfelt thanks to my family and well-wishers. well -wishers.
Land & Rent Law
CONTENTS
ROLE AND STATUS OF RENT CONTROLLER 1. 2. 3. 4.
Controller Appointment Duties of Controller Status of Controller
CLASSES AND POWERS OF REVENUE OFFICERS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Classes of Revenue Officers (Section 6) Financial Commissioners (Section 7) Appointment (Sections 8 & 9) Powers (Sections 10 – 12) Appeal, Review & Revision (Sections 13 – 16)
3
Land & Rent Law
4
Role and Status of the Controller (UNDER EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT 1949) Controller Section 2(b) of the Act defines the term Controller as: "`Controller means any person who is appointed by the Stale Government to perform the functions of a controller under the A ct". The first Court in which proceedings are to be initiated under the Rent Act is the Controller. Since this designation is used in the context of the Rent Act a Controller is commonly addressed as Rent Controller under the Act. The State Government under the Act, is vested with the power of appeasing any person as Controller. Since the Act did not envisage a particular civil servant of the state as Controller, the State could entrust the functions of the controller under the Act to any person.
Appointment In pursuance of Clause (b) of Section 2 of the 1947 Act, the Governor of Punjab appointed, all First Class Subordinate Judges to perform function of Controller within the limits of their civil jurisdiction. In Lakhi Ram v Sagar1, it has been held that the notification has not been superseded and is still valid. By notification No. 1562-cr-47/9228 dated 18.4.1947, All District Judges in Punjab in their respective jurisdiction were appointed Appellate Authority under the Act. In Sunder Singh v Budh Dev 2, it that despite the repeal of the 1947 Act by Section 21 of the 1949 Act, this notification continued to be in force by virtue of Section 22 of the Punjab General Act, 1898. In Chandigarh, vide notifications No. 4612-LD-7816S42 and 6843 doted 25.11.1972, first class subordinate judges have been appointed as Caftans and the District Judge as Appellate Authority under the Act on the Punjab pattern.
Duties of Controller The duties assigned to the Controller under the Act primarily concern the resolution of dispute between one person and another in relation to the conditions upon which the property of one could be held by the other. He has the duty to fix the rent of the premises if called upon by the parties to do so. He has to decide whether a tenant is liable for eviction from the premises on the asking of the landlord under any one of the provisions of the Act. He has the duty to impose penalty on the erring party for violation of one or the other provisions of the 1 (1963) 2 1971
65 P.L.R 691 RCJ 12
Land & Rent Law
5
Act. In Mahi Dass v Nagar Mal 3, it has been has held that the Rent Controllers would do well to confine themselves to decide matters under the Act, and not deciding rival claims of title in property under the guise of ejectment application under the Act. Thus it is not in the purview of a controller to decide the question of title to a property. He is to confine himself to discharge the duties enjoined upon him under the Act only.
Status of the Controller What is the Status of the Controller under the Act? Is it a civil Court or not? This has been the matter of controversy till date. At the earliest, in Pitman's Shorthand Academy v M/s. Lila Ram and Sons 4, a Full Bench of the East Punjab High Court had held that the Controller under the Act is persona designated i.e. it is a designated Court and not a Civil Court. For corning to this conclusion, the Full Bench had emphasized that since 'any person' could be appointed Controller by the Government, therefore, it is not a Civil Court. It was further held that the Controller is not to follow the procedure under the Civil Procedure Code. He is expected to observe the elementary and fundamental principles of judicial enquiry to ensure the rudimentary requirement of fair play. He is at liberty to devise such procedure for ascertaining the facts on which he is to act or decide. ( Manohar Lal v Mohan Lal5) However, in Vidya Devi v Firm Madan Lol Prem Kumar6, another Full Bench of the High Court has held that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are civil courts for the purpose of Sections 195 (1)- (b), 476 and 479 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In K. Khalapathi Rao v B.N.Reddy 7, it has been held that the Controller is a Court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In Ram Dass v Smt. Sukhdev Kaur 8, a division bench of the High Court has held that Controller and Appellate Authority are not Courts Stricto Sensu but are persona designata. In Kishori Lal v Radha Rani Gupta9, it has been held that Section 10 of C.P.C is inapplicable to the proceedings before the Controller as the Rent Controller is persona designata and not a Civil Court. The decision in Ramm Dass’s case has been reiterated in Lal Chand v Kishan Murari Goel 10, by holding that C.P.C is not applicable under the Rent Act. The decision of the Controller to permit the recall of a witness was upheld as he is to devise his own procedure in the absence of the applicabilit y of the C.P.C.
3 (1965)
67 P.L.R 35 52 PLR 1 5 (1957) 59 P.L.R 38 6 AIR 1971 P & H 150 7 1971 RCJ 164 8 AIR 1981 P & H 301 9 1993 (1) RCR 1 P & H 10 1995 (1) RCR 274 P & H 4 (1950)
Land & Rent Law
6
In Imtiaz Ahmed v M/s. Taba Exports 11, the Karnataka High Court has held that since the Rent Controller is not a Court, it has no inherent power under Section 151 of the C.P.C. But a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in P. Krishnankutty Nair v Accommodation Controller12, where the Tehsildar who was the Accommodation Controller under the Rent Act had allowed the Tenant to carry out some repairs on certain conditions and the tenant made replacements in violation of the order, the High Court has held that the Court of Controller dies not become functus officio. He can direct demolition of the unauthorized construction because the Court has the inherent power to pass any order to ensure power implementation of its order. But the Supreme Court now has held in Mukri Gopalan v Cheppilat P. Aboobacker13, that the Appellate Authority under the Kerala Act, functions as Court (though not fully fledged Civil Court) and not as persona designata. The Court added to say that it will be persona designata, if the powers are conferred on a named person or authority and these powers cannot be exercised by anybody else. When powers are conferred on the District Judge by a notification and the District Judge is a Court, therefore, the provisions of the limitation Act get telescoped into special or local law. The above decision of the Supreme Court has been followed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Balakrishnan v Mariyamma14, to hold that Rent Controller under the Act is not persona designata. But it has further held that it is not a Civil Court for the purpose of Section 115 of the C.P.C. From the above, it may be concluded that the Rent Controller is not a Court stricto sensu but it is also not persona designata pure and simple. In view of the fact that judicial officers working as Courts are assigned the duties under the Act, by virtue of the notifications by the competent authority, therefore they continue to be courts very well.
11 1996
(1) RCR Karnataka (1) RCR 117 Kerala 13 1995 (2) RCR 323 S.C (Kerala Act) 14 1997 (1) RCR 326 Kerala 12 1997
Land & Rent Law
7
Revenue Officers
(Under The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887) Classes & Powers Classes of Revenue Officers (Section 6)
1. Classes of Revenue Officers: Section 6 (1) provides that there shall be the following classes of Revenue-officers, namely: a) The Financial Commissioner; b) The Commissioner; c) The Collector; d) The Assistant Collector of the first grade; and e) The Assistant Collector of the second grade. Section 6(2) provides that the Deputy Commissioner of a District shall be the Collector thereof. Jurisdiction and Appointment of Revenue Officers
Section 6(3) of the Act prescribes that the State Government may appoint any Assistant Commissioner, extra Assistant Commissioner or Tehsildar to perform the function and duties of Assistant Collector First Grade or Second Grade as the case may be. The Naib-Tehsildar may be appointed as Assistant Collector, Second Grade to discharge duties under this Act. Section 6(4), further empowers the Government to appoint any person co-person by designation or name by way of notification as Revenue Officer or Officer. Section 6(5) lays down the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officers. The Financial Commissioner’s jurisdiction extends to the whole of the territories of State governmen t of Punjab. The Commissioner and Collector and Assistant Collectors have the jurisdiction to their respective division and district in which they are employed.
Land & Rent Law
8
Financial Commissioners: (Section 7)
1) There shall be one or more Financial Commissioners, who shall be appointed by the State Government. 2) Where more Financial Commissioners than one have been appointed, the State Government may make rules as to the distribution among them of business under this or any other Act, and by those rules require any case or class or classes of cases to be considered and disposed of by the Financial Commissioners collectively. 3) When there is a difference of opinion among the Financial Commissioners as to any decree or order to be made in a case which they are required by rules under the last foregoing sub-section to consider, and dispose of collectively, the following rules shall apply, namely : a) Where the case is an appeal or a case on review or revision, it shall be decided in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the Financial Commissioners, or if there is no such majority which concurs in a decision modifying or reversing the decree or order under appeal, review or revision , that decree or order shall be affirmed; and b) Where the case is not an appeal or a case on review or revision, the matter respecting which there is the difference of opinion shall be referred to the [State
Government]
for
decision
and
the
decision
of
that
Government with respect thereto shall be final. 4) The expression ―Financial Commissioner‖ in this or any other Act shall, when there are more Financial Commissioners than one , be construed as meaning one or more of the Financial Commissioners as the rules for the time being in force under sub-section (2) may require. 5) The second Financial Commissioner appointed under section 52 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1884 shall be deemed to have had jurisdiction on and after the first day of November , 1884, to make, any decree or order or dispose of any other
Land & Rent Law
9
business which might have been made or disposed of by the other Financial Commissioner.
APPOINTMENT (Section 8) Appointment of Commissioners and of Deputy, Assistant and Extra Assistant Commissioners - Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and
Extra Assistant Commissioners shall be appointed by the State Government. (Section 9) Appointment of Tahsildars and Naib-Tahsildars : - The State Government shall fix the
number of Tahsildars and Naib-Tahsildars to be appointed.
POWERS (Section 10) Powers of Revenue-officers: - Except where the class of the Revenue-officer by whom any
function is to be discharged is specified in this Act, the State Government may, by notification determine the functions to be discharged under this Act by any class of Revenueofficers.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL (Section 11) Superintendence and control of Revenue-officers: -
1) The Financial Commissioner shall subject to the control of the State Government. 2) The general superintendence and control over all other Revenue – officers shall be vested in, and Commissioner.
all such officers shall be subordinate to the Financial
Land & Rent Law
10
3) Subject to the general superintendence and control of the Financial Commissioner, a Commissioner shall control all other Revenue-officers in his division. 4) Subject as aforesaid and to the control of the Commissioner, a Collector shall control all other Revenue-officers in his district. The Crux of this section implies 3 things: General:
In Radha Swami Satsang, Beas v State of Himachal Pradesh 15, the Court observed that the placement of Sections 11 & 12 under heading ―Administrative Control‖ and Sections 13 to 16 under heading ―Appeal, Revenue & Revision‖ bring out legislative intention of maintaining a clear demarcation between different powers exercisable by superior Revenue Officers over inferior Revenue Officers. The Court further held that some say of superior Revenue Officers are confirmed with supervisory powers over Revenue Officers placed lower in hierarchy under various provisions, the basic and the essential distinction between nature and character of supervisory powers. Standing Orders:
In Mohan Singh v the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab 16, it is held that the status of standing orders issued by the Financial Commissioner under this Act is not more than that to administrative directions or executive orders, the standing orders can only be issued because of the general powers of the Superintendence granted to the Financial Commissioner under Section 11. The Court further observed that whenever there is a conflict between the Financial Commissioner’s Standing Orders and the Statutory Rules framed under the Act then the Statutory Rules must be given precedence over the s tanding orders. Superintendence and Control:
The State Government has complete Superintendence and control of the power, function and duties of the Financial Commissioner. In other words the Financial Commissioner shall be subject to the control of the State Government.
15 1984 16 1966
PLJ 535 PLR 377
Land & Rent Law
11
All the revenue officers in the division are subject to the general superintendence and control of the Commissioner and Revenue Officer in the State of Punjab are subject to the control of the Financial Commissioner. The Collector shall control all other revenue officers in his district subject to the control of the Commissioner.
Power to distribute business and withdraw and transfer cases:Section (12)
1) The Financial Commissioner or a Commissioner or Collector may by written order distribute, in such manner as he thinks fit, any business cognizable by any Revenue-officer under his control. 2) The Financial Commissioner or a Commissioner or Collector may withdraw any case pending before any Revenue-officer under his control, and either dispose of it himself, or by written order refer it for disposal to any other Revenue-officer under his control. 3) An order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall not empower any officer to exercise any powers or deal with any business which he would not be competent to exercise or deal with within the local limits of his own Jurisdiction. The crux of this section implies 3 things: Distribution of Work:
The distribution of work is purely based on administrative expediency. The Financial Commissioner or a Collector may by written order distribute any business cognizable by any Revenue Officer under his control as he deems fit. Transfer of Cases:
In the transfer of cases, it is not necessary that a party to the litigation move an application, the revenue officer may act suo moto. The power to transfer should be exercised diligently and with application of mind. The following are the factors relevant to be considered at the time of transfer of a case:
Pendency of case in the Subordinate Court The officer to whom, case is to be transferred have the competence and jurisdiction to try it.
Land & Rent Law
12
Withdrawal of Case:
The higher Revenue Officer may withdraw a case from the subordinate officer and then they may decide it himself or transfer to any other subordinate officer who is competent to decide it.
Appeal, Review and Revision Appeals: (Section 13)
Save as otherwise provided by this Act, an appeal shall lie from an original or appellate order of a Revenue-officer as follows, namely: a) to the Collector when the order is made by an Assi stant Collector of either grade; b) to the Commissioner when the order is made by a Collector; c) to the Financial Commissioner when the order is made by a Commissioner: Provided that-i.
when an original order is confirmed on first appeal, a further appeal shall not lie;
ii.
when any such order is modified or reversed on appeal by the Collector, the order made by the Commissioner on further appeal, if any, to him shall be final.
The crux of this section can be explained under 7 heads: Meaning and Scope:
In Amerheri Co-op. Society v. State of Haryana 17, the Court held that right to appeal is a creation of statute. The provisions are not arbitrary; right of an appeal is a statutory right and the legislature, in its wisdom, may in the circumstances of the given case, provide for an appeal against an order of quasi-judicial nature and in other given case the said remedy of appeal may not be appealable. In Kartar Kaur v State of Haryana 18, the Court held that right of appeal is a vested right and is given by law prevailing on the date of institution of suit or proceedings and not on the
17 1976 18 1985
PLJ 302 (P & H) RRR 615 (P & H)
Land & Rent Law
13
date of filing appeal. This vested right of appeal can be taken away by a subsequent enactment only if it so provides expressly or by necessary intendment and not otherwise. In Seth Nand Law v State of Haryana 19, the Supreme Court held that the legislature while granting right of appeal can impose conditions for exercise of such right but conditions should make reasonable right of appeal almost illusory. In Darshan Singh v Rampal Singh 20, the Supreme Court held that an appeal is a continuation of suit and any change in law between date of decree and decision of appeal should be taken into consideration. An order passed by the Assistant collector in exercise of its original jurisdiction is appealable before the Collector and the original order passed by the Collector is appealable before the Commissioner. An order confirmed in first appeal is final and under no circumstances, second appeal is maintainable. In Munshi Ram v The Collector, Agrarian, (SDM Civil), Palwal 21, the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, held that the only cases which can come before the Financial Commissioner in appeal are those in which Commissioner has modified or reversed original orders passed by Collectors. In Santa Singh v Smt Rana 22, it was held that the orders sanctioning mode of partition is an appealable order. In Kartar Kaur v State of Haryana 23, the Court held that the right of appeal is a substantive right and can be availed of subject to statutory requirement. In Smt. Balbir Kaur v Financial Commissioner, Punjab 24, the Court held that it is not proper to apply blindly the Principles of Appeals and Revision arising out of civil suits under the C.P.C to appeals and revisions arising out of orders under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.
19 1980
PLJ 470 (1) RRR 167(S.C) 21 1981 PLJ 71 (FCH) 22 1975 PLJ 378 FCP 23 1985 RRR 615 (P & H) 24 1970 PLJ 115 20 1991
Land & Rent Law
14
Appeals in partition cases:
In Santa Singh v Smt. Rana 25, it was held that the orders sanctioning mode of partition is an appealable order. In Harjas v Daya Ram and Others 26, the Assistant Collector sought permission from the Collector for amending the mode of partition, sanction was given by the Collector under Section 15 of the Act to the proposal submitted to him by the Assistant Collector first grade to the effect that he be allowed to amend the mode of partition in certain manner. Order of Collector does not constitute an order, which is appealable under Section 13. The aggrieved party can proceed to seek legal remedies only after the Assistance Collector after review has passed another order sanctioning the mode of partition. In Chiranji v Inder Singh 27, it was held that the cross objections filed against the partition ends automatically with the withdrawal of appeal by the appellant. The provisions of C.P.C are not applicable, as such, the cross objection cannot be treated as appeal. Appeals in Lambardari cases:
In Nand Lal v Gurunditta and Others 28, it was held that where the choice of the Collector is appointment of Lambardar, is patently against the Land Revenue rules and not in best public interest, such type of order appointing the Lambardar can be upset in appeal by higher Revenue Officer. In Umed Singh v Muriga Ram29, it was held that the choice of Collector in appointing Lambardar cannot be interfered in appeal with unless it is be proved that his reasoning is perverse or that he had committed illegality in passing the order. Appeal in Mutation cases:
In Gurmail Kaur v Prem Kumar 30, the Court held that an appeal shall lie against the order sanctioning or refusing the mutation.
25 Supra
Note 22 PLJ 83 27 1950 to 1988 LJR (Rev.) 55 28 1983 PLJ 78 29 1992 (1) LJR 593 30 1970 PLR 365 26 1978
Land & Rent Law
15
Appeal against entries of Khasra Girdawaris:
In Bhagwan Dass v Secretary of State of India 31, it was held that an older of the Revenue Officer under Section 36 of the Act, for determining the entries to be made in the record of rights or its making or revision of such entries, disputes and determination is appealable. Abatement:
The general principle is that appeal does not automatically abate with the death of the appellant, if right to sue survives in the heirs. Limitation:
In Lal Singh v Badan Singh32, it was held that where the appellant died during the pendency of appeal, there is no abatement of the appeal. The legal heirs can pursue the appeal. The period of limitation starts from the date of order and not from the date of knowledge. Hence Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable and the person aggrieved can take the benefit of the same.
Limitation for Appeals:(Section 14)
Save as otherwise provided by this Act, the period of limitation for an appeal under the last foregoing section shall run from the date of the order appealed against, and shall be as follows that is to saya) the appeals lies to the Collector — thirty days; b) when the appeal lies to the Commissioner — sixty days; c) when the appeal lies to the Financial Commissioner — ninety days;
31 4
PR 1883 (Rev.) PLJ 61
32 1968
Land & Rent Law
16
The crux of this section can be summed up under 2 headings: Meaning and Scope:
The period of limitation is 30 days when the appeals lie to the Collector is 60 days when it lies to the Commissioner and 90 days when it lies to the Financial Commissioner. In Hari Ram v Laiqus33, it was held that the period of limitation will be counted from the communication of an order and not from the date of the order. In Rama Phula Singh v Gurpreet Singh34, the Financial Commissioner, Punjab held that the period of limitation starts to run from the date on which the order or decree as communicated and not from the date of such order or decree. In Raghubir Singh v State of Haryana 35, the Court held that where a person is not a party to the other then the limitation against such a party is not to start from the date of order but from the date of knowledge. In Manmohan Singh v Gokal Chand 36, it was held that the period of limitation for an appeal under Section 14 of the Act starts from the day on which order appealed against was pronounced and not from the day on which the appellant came to know of its pronouncement. Condonation of delay:
The appellant can take the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. But he has to satisfy the Appellate Court the sufficient cause. In Joginder Singh v Daljit Singh37, it was held that the proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
33 1958
PLJ 24 (FCP) LLT 17 (FCP) 35 1980 PLJ 573 36 1959 PLJ 13 37 1979 RRR 369 34 1955
Land & Rent Law
17
Review by Revenue-officers: (Section 15)
1) A Revenue-officer may, either of his 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 his predecessors in office : Provided as follows: a) when a Commissioner or Collector thinks it necessary to review any order which he has not himself passed, and when a Revenue-officer of a class below that of Collector proposes to review any order whither passed by himself or by any of his predecessors in office, he shall first obtain the sanction of the Revenue-officer to whose control he is i mmediately subject b) an application for review of an order shall not be entertained unless it is made within ninety days from the passing of the order, or unless the applicant satisfies the Revenue-officer that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within that period ; c) an order shall not be modified or reversed unless reasonable notice has been given to the parties affected thereby to appear and be heard in support of the order ; d) An order against which an appeal has been preferred shall not be reviewed. 2) For the purposes of this section, the Collector shall be deemed to be the successor in office of any Revenue-officer of a lower class who has left the district or has ceased to exercise powers as Revenue-officer, and to whom there is no successor in office. 3) An appeal shall not lie from an order refusing to review or confirming on review a previous order.
Land & Rent Law
18
The crux of this section can be explained under the following headings: Meaning and Scope:
Section 15 provides for the review of the orders passed by the Revenue Officers. In Gurbaksh Singh v Joginder Singh 38, the Financial Commissioner, Punjab held that the scope of review is very limited and is confined to correcting error on the face of the record. Procedure:
The Revenue Officer has the power to review its own order and those of his predecessors, provided no appeal has been filed again such an order but this power is subject to the prior permission of the higher Revenue Officers. The application for review can only be entertained when such an application is presented within 90 days of the date of the order but there is no period of limitation prescribed when the Revenue Officer is reviewing his own order on his own motion. No appeal lies against an order refusing to review or confirming on review, a previous order. Opportunity of Hearing:
In Bachittar Singh v Dhani Ram 39, the Financial Commissioner held that it is the mandatory requirement of section 15 (1) (c) that reasonable opportunity be given by the Revenue Officer before order is being modified or reversed while exercising the power of review. Similarly, the Financial Commissioner in Ved Parkash v The State of Punjab 40, held that an order cannot be reviewed under Section 15 of the Act unless notice was issued to the parties affected.
Power to call for examine and revise proceedings of Revenue-officers: (Section 16)
1) The Financial Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed by, any Revenue – officer subordinate to him.
38 1986
PLJ 75 RRR 76 (FCHP) 40 1970 PLJ 244 39 1986
Land & Rent Law
19
2) A Commissioner or Collector may call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue officer under his control. 3) If in any case in which a Commissioner or Collector has called for a record he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or order made should be modified or reversed, he shall report the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Financial Commissioner. 4) The Financial Commissioner may in any case called for by himself under subsection (1) or reported to him under sub-section (3) pass s uch order as he thinks fit Provided that he shall not under this section pass an order reversing or modifying any proceeding or order of a subordinate Revenue-officer and affecting any question of right between private persons without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard. The crux of this section implies the following: Revisional jurisdiction and its scope:
Section 16 provides for power of revision of the Financial Commissioner and the Commissioner. This power of revision of Financial Commissioner and the Commissioner is very wide and unfettered. Section 16 does not lay down the period of limitation for filing the revision. In Bhagwana v Financial Commissioner, Haryana 41, it was held that the Financial Commissioner being the final authority in the hierarchy of Revenue Officers/Courts, is under a statutory obligation to examine the merits of the case and pass a speaking order answering the last of a quasi-judicial order. Under Section 16 of the Act, the revisional authority (1) can pass any order and (2) at any stage of proceedings or against final order passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to him in relation to any proceedings or order passed under the Act.
41 2000
(3) RCR (Civil) 298 (P & H)
Land & Rent Law
20
There is a vast scope for interference in revisional cases under the Act. In Joginder Singh v Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab 42, it was held that the scope of powers of
Financial Commissioner is wider U/S of the Act. The Financial Commissioner can go into the question of fact as well as law. Only rider on the power of the Financial Commissioner is that he has to provide an opportunity of hearing to the interested persons. There is no other impediment on his power of setting aside the order of the Sub-ordinate Officer. The High Court observed that the power of Financial Commissioner is wider than the revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 C.P.C Commissioner’s power of revision:
In Kamla Devi v Rajkumar43, it was held that the Commissioner can only call for the record of the proceedings pending before or disposed of by any officer under his control. If the Commissioner after notice and affording of opportunity of being heard to the parties examining the record is of the opinion that proceedings taken or order passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to him deserve to be modified or revised, then he can recommend the case to Financial Commissioner, who is only competent to accept or reject the revision petition. The Commissioner has no power to pass an order in revision. Amendment of Section 16:
In Baldev Singh v The Financial Commissioner, Haryana 44, the Court held that the effect of Amendment to Section 16 (3) and (4) as amended vide Punjab Land Revenue (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1996 is that Commissioner need not to make recommendation to Financial Commissioner for acceptance of revision petition filed before him. He can himself take decision of same without making any reference which was earl ier required to be made. In Chander Parkash v Laxmi Naranjan 45, the Court held that the Financial Commissioner will refuse to interfere when a revision petition is made after the period assigned for an appeal unless for reasons which would justify for the extension for the period of the limitation. Section 16 was amended in the year 1998 vide Punjab Act No. 14 of 1998. A controversy arose to whether a revision petition is maintainable before the Financial Commissioner after 42 2003
(2) RCR (Civil) 461 (P & H) PLJ 89 44 2003 (3) RCR (Civil) 551 (P & H) 45 1932 LLT 15 43 1967
Land & Rent Law
21
1998 amendment. This controversy was finally settled by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagir Singh v Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab 46, and held that as per sub-section 3 of section 16 of the Act, it is evident that if the Collector refer the matter to the Commissioner, it is only then, the order of the Commissioner would be final. The jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner, is, however, as provided by Section 16 (4), if the order impugned before the Financial Commissioner in a revision was not in a reference by the Collector but was passed by the Commissioner under the hierarchy created under the Act, such an order is not final and covered under Secti on 16 (3) and revision under Section 16 (4) is still maintainable. In Jagir Singh v Nazar Singh 47, the Financial Commissioner, Punjab held that Commissioner has been given powers of revision under the amended Act and he can modify or reverse the proceedings under case of Subordinate Revenue Officers and the decision of the Commissioner shall be final in such revisional cases. The only power of Commissioner has been enhanced by way of amendment and the power of Financial Commissioner are same after the amendment. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab, in Darbari Lal v Balbir48, observed that prior to amendment Collector or the Commissioner had to report their opinion for orders of the Financial Commissioner for modification or reversal of the orders of their subordinate authority but after amendment, Collector have to recommend only to the Commissioner and the Order of the Commissioner will be final. The Financial Commissioner further observed that of the orders of all the authorities below or concurrent, revision petition before the Financial Commissioner is still maintainable. Revision- Suo Moto:
In Suraj Bhana v Rati Ram49, the Court held that even accepting that the complainant was not a necessary party in the proceedings before the Collector or the Commissioner. This would not make the appeal/revision infructuous because the matter before the Financial Commissioner can be heard under suo moto powers under Section 16 of the Act. Speaking Order:
46 2000
(2) RCR (Civil) 534 (P & H) (2) RCR (Civil) 140 (FCP) 48 1999 (4) RCR (Civil) 578 (FCP) 49 1993 (1) LJR 296 47 1999
Land & Rent Law
22
In Shri Kamkhum v State of H.P 50, it was held that the decision merely recorded the ultimate conclusion, but did not disclose the process if reasoning by which such conclusion was arrived at. It is settled law that quasi-judicial authority is under an obligation to give reasons in support of its conclusion, because it is the reasons which rules out the arbitrariness. Financial Commissioner’s power of correction of Jamabandi:
In Mohinder Singh v State of Punjab 51, the question arose whether the Financial Commissioner has jurisdiction to order correction in Jamabandi. The Court held that the Financial Commissioner has no jurisdiction to order corrections in the Jamabandi by resort to administrative power under Section 11 of the Act- Financial Commissioner can only order for the correction of clerical orders in the Jamabandi in accordance with power conferred and the procedure prescribed by para 7.29 of Chapter VII of the Punjab Land Records ManualsFinancial Commissioner may in exercise of his powers under Section 16 (1) of the Act take suo moto notice of a fraudulent entry in the record of rights and ordered its correction on the basis of an established fraud. The power under Section 16 (1) of the Act shall be exercised in the rarest of rare case and then also after affording an opportunity of hearing to the party likely to be affected and by recording a reasoned order.
50 1984 51 2011
Sim LJ 542 (H.P) (1) RCR (Civil) 107 (P & H)
Land & Rent Law
23
BIBLIOGRAPHY
JAUHAR, D. N, Rent Matters on Trial , 1998 Edition. Chandigarh: The Punjab Law Reporter Press. 1998 KHURANA, P.S, KHURANA A. K. A Treatise on Land Laws, 3rd Edition. Chandigarh: Shree Ram Law House, 2013.
