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.