Jag Ram vs Financial Commissioner (Revenue)

Swatanter Kumar, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No. 5 has not adhered to the schedule of payment and as such he had lost the interest in the property in question. He further contends that Special Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to impose costs of Rs. 10,000/-

The petitioner has been litigating before the authorities and Courts since 1967 and has only got adverse orders. This Court does not sit as a Court of appeal so as to appreciate the entire evidence or the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the authorities concerned, while exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of this jurisdiction is a very limited one and is controlled by a well settled cannons of writ jurisdiction. All these years, the authorities concerned have passed the orders which are detailed ones and founded upon acceptable evidence. We would refer to the finding recorded by the authorities concerned in the impugned order dated 16.9.1999:

"As a sequel to the above, it is observed that the order of Tehsildar (Sales) dated 20.4.1998 for forfeiting the amount deposited by Fateh Singh in the proceedings for correcting ownership and ejectment of the petitioner is illegal, without jurisdiction and ill motivated. It has rightly been set aside by the Settlement Officer (Sales) vide his order dated 29.7.1998 and I uphold the same. His prayer for setting aside the order dated 22.8.87 is devoid of any merit and I fear that the same may amount to contempt of Court, as this order has already been upheld not only by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 5.2.1974, but also by the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in C.W.P. No. 4953 of 1974 and the Hon''ble Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 1474 of 1981. Hence the present revision petition is dismissed and in the peculiar circumstances of the case referred to above, special cost of Rs. 10,000/- are imposed on the petitioner Jag Ram. Possession of the suit land be immediately taken from him and delivered to Fateh Singh. Recovery of rent for the unauthorised occupation be assessed and recovered by the competent authority in accordance with law."

As far as the powers of the authority concerned to impose costs is concerned, we do not find any merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. The authority concerned while discharging quasi judicial function, under the specific law, have powers to impose costs. Concept of costs is primarily founded on the principle of abuse of the process of law, Such power is not only vested in the Courts alone but it is equally applicable to the Tribunal or the quasi judicial authorities discharging their function under a specific law while determining the right of the parties to the lis before it. However, in the interest of justice we reduce the costs of Rs. 5,000/- instead of Rs. 10,000/-

With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.