The Financial Commissioner (taxation) Punjab and Ors. v. Harbhajan Singh

Leave granted. H We have heard learned counsel on both the sides. 812 I -. ' '· \ ·.~ \ FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (TAXATION) PUNJAB'· HARBHAJAN SINGH 813 This appe~l relate~ to the grant of 11 · Kanals 7 m 0 arlas of Ian\! in A 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 fi~al by proceedings d~ted 'August 17, 1966. Thereafter, in the collusion with the revenue offici~ls the respondent got his name mutated in the. records .with regard to .the l~nd in the ye~r 1967 B and asked for assignm~nt of the s'ame under the Di~placed.Persons (Com­ pensation and R~habilitation) Act, 1954 (for ~h~rt, ·the ;Act'). One Mr. j.s. Quami, Seit\ement Office; gr;nted asslgiiinent to the. respolldent on Augusi 29, 1969:' Thereafter:,"when it'~as 'noticed that 'the mutation was obtained. by phiying' fraud, the self-same officer as Settlement Commis- C sioner, by proceedings ilated i6:9.1971,. set aside the order. It came to be challenged by filing of a reVision under Se~tion 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 sing!~ Judge by order dated January 12, 1989, D dismissed the. \vrit petition. The Division Bench by judgment and order dated January 12, 1989 in LP A No. 526/82 has set aside the order on the finding that J.S: Qaumi having exeri:ised the power as Settlement Officer 'f 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. )i The question is : whether the order passed by J.S. Qaumi as Settle­ ment 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 F of any proceeding under this Act and· may pass such order in relation thereto as in its opinion the circumstances of the. case re4uire and as is not inconsistent with ~y of the provIS1ons contained in this Act or the rules made therennder." A reading thereof would clearly indicate that the Financial Commis- G sioner (Taxation) as a delegate of the Centra!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 sam.e. It is true, as rightly contend.ed by the H 814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996]3 S.C.R. A learned counsel for the respondent, that J.S. Qaumi having granted assign­ ment as Settlement Officer, could not sit over his order as Chief Settlement . Commissioner. This is the settled legal position and needs no reiteration. This Court in Guiab Ajwani & Ors. v. Saraswati Bai & Ors., (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 held that after his brother J awhar Singh had been granted' the same assignment as granted to them, the respondent in collusion with lower level revenue officials had played fraud and obtained another assignment. The Commis- C sioner 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. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Division bench D is set aside and that of the single Judge and the authorities upheld. No costs. l R.P. Appeal allowed.