Mohan Lal vs The Financial Commissioner and Others

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Concisely, the relevant facts, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that land measuring 1.09 hectares of big landowner Shiv Chand son of Molu (Respondent No. 3) was declared surplus by the prescribed authority, by virtue of order dated 29.6.1976. The appeal filed by him was dismissed in default on 24.10.1977. So much so, the application for its restoration was also dismissed on 29.6.1981 by the Commissioner, Patiala Division (Respondent No. 2). The revision filed by the Petitioner was dismissed as well, by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) (Respondent No. 1), by way of order dated 3.8.1982 (Annexure P1). The surplus land of the big landowner was stated to have been allotted to the Petitioner.

It is not a matter of dispute that the subsequent appeal filed by Respondent No. 3 was treated as revision petition and the Commissioner sent the reference and recommended to Financial Commissioner (Respondent No. 1) to order de novo hearing of the case by the Collector, Agrarian as miscarriage of justice had taken place, by means of reference order dated 14.9.1988 (Annexure P4). The Petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and he was allowed to be impleaded as Respondent No. 2. The Financial Commissioner (Respondent No. 1) examined the matter in a right perspective, accepted the reference of the Commissioner (Respondent No. 2) and remanded the case back for its fresh decision on merits by the Collector, Agrarian, by virtue of impugned order dated 12.8.1992 (Annexure P5).

The Petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P5), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. That is how, I am seized of the matter.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this respect.

Ex facie, the argument of learned Counsel for Petitioner that since the appeal filed by Respondent No. 3 was dismissed in default, so, the Commissioner fell in error in sending the recommendation/reference to the Financial Commissioner, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

As is evident from the record, that the land measuring 1.09 hectares of big landowner Respondent No. 3 was declared surplus by the prescribed authority on 29.6.1976. The appeal filed by him was not decided on merits, but dismissed in default. Not only that, the application for its restoration was dismissed as well, by the Commissioner. Meaning thereby, the appeal filed by Respondent No. 3 was never decided on merits. Keeping in view the miscarriage of justice to the Petitioner, the Commissioner recommended and made the reference (Annexure P4) to the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner duly considered the entitlement of permissible area of the Petitioner and came to the conclusion that illegality has erupted inculcating and perpetuating the injustice to him. Therefore, he has rightly accepted the recommendation/reference of the Commissioner and remanded the case for its fresh decision, vide impugned order dated 12.8.1992 (Annexure P5), the operative part of which is as under:

I have pondered over the arguments put forward by the learned Counsel and have also perused the record in depth. I conclude that the Commissioner has correctly suggested that the Collector be asked to decide the matter afresh. The Respondents have, in my view, not been able to refute the citations to the effect that no period of limitation is prescribed in revision (1976 RLR page 484) particularly where an injustice is sought to be righted (1968 PLJ page 203). Without commenting on the merits of the case, I would only conclude that no injustice will be done to any one if the case is re-decided on merits by the Collector and this will serve the end of meting out substantial justice. The case is accordingly remanded to the Collector Agrarian Sunam. The parties are directed to appear before him on 12th October, 1992.

Meaning thereby, the Financial Commissioner has only accepted the recommendation of the Commissioner and remanded the case for its fresh decision by the prescribed authority in accordance with law and recorded the valid reasons in this regard. Such order containing valid reasons cannot possibly be interfered with, while exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, unless and until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P5) deserves to be and is hereby maintained under the present set of circumstances.

There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. What is not disputed here is that after the remand, the Collector, Agrarian/prescribed authority has already decided the surplus case of Respondent No. 3, by means of order dated 15.12.1992 (Annexure R3/1). The Petitioner has already filed the appeal against this order before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, which is stated to be still pending. In this manner, otherwise also, once the matter having been already decided by the Collector Agrarian, then no relief can be granted to the Petitioner in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, thus seen from any angle and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of hearing of the appeal, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such.