Surjit Singh vs Budh Singh

S.R. Bunger, FC.

The president is a review application dated 23.10.1996, made under Section 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, for recalling the order dated 11.9.1996, passed by my learned predecessor in ROR No. 241 of 19951996, in a Lambardari case, and for further setting aside the orders dated 27.11.1995, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, as well as, the order dated 18.03.1994, passed by the District Collector, Sangrur.

The facts of this case are, that, with a view to and fill up a vacancy of a Lambardar in village Manki, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur, the District Collector, Sangrur, after considering the personal merits of the close contestants, namely, Surjit Singh and Budh Singh, vide his order dated 18.03.1994, had ordered the appointment of Budh Singh s/o Ajaib Singh, as Lambardar of village Manki. Aggrieved by this order, Surjit Singh had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, which was rejected vide order dated 27.11.1995, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala; the operative part of which reads as follows :

"The main objection of the appellant against the respondent is that the respondent is running a shop at Malerkotla therefore does not normally reside in the village. In support he produced photographs of signboard which is on record. But this photograph and the signboard reads : "Budh Singh Jagjit Singh Mankiwale" thus it is clear that the respondent alone is not running the shop and it can be presumed that the other partner is also devoting enough time to the shop. The appellant has not produced any evidence to show that it is only the respondent who generally sits in the shop. The impugned order of the learned Collector is detailed and no perversity or illegality has been shown in the order. I, therefore, do not find any need to interfere with the choice of the Collector. The appeal is therefore dismissed."

Still aggrieved by this order, Surjit Singh had filed the revision petition before this Court, which was rejected by my learned predecessor, vide his order dated 11.09.1996. The operative part of this order reads as follows :

"The detailed orders by the Collector as well as the learned Commissioner have already covered the above two main issues raised by the learned Counsel. It is a finding that the commercial enterprises in which Shri Budh Singh is involved, are in partnership with others and it is not established that Budh Singh personally sits and supervises these enterprises. The Commission Agency is in the name of three persons and the sale of insecticides is licenced in the name of M/s. Kisan Sewa Centre. It has come on record that Shri Budh Singh owns more land than the petitioner in the village and resides in the village. Thus, his availability in the village to look after the agricultural land is assured. Even otherwise also, the villagers have to go to Malerkotla for all miscellaneous works like registration of documents, evidence in court and Budh Singh can conveniently be available both for administrative work of the villagers as well as supervision of his commercial enterprises. Thus, considering the issue from all alternatives, I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the order of the Distt. Collector requiring any interference. The Distt. Collector has given due regard and considered all the favourable features in the profile of the petitioner and has chosen to prefer the respondent. I do not see any reason to interfere with the choice of the candidate by the District Collector and the endorsement of the order in appeal by the Commissioner. There is no material which could render the order of Collector bad in law. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine".

For seeking review of this order, the present review application has been made, on the grounds stated in the application dated 23.10.1996.

Section 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, provides for the "Review by Revenue Officers", but in this section, no grounds have been indicated, on the basis of which, review may be done. In the absence of that, one may legitimately get guided by the provisions under Section 114, read with Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code. Rule 1 of the aforesaid Order reads as follows :

"Application for review of judgment (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved

(1) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court or Small Causes,

and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the Court which passed the decree or made the order."

This Rule may be made applicable in the proceedings before Revenue Officers also mutatis mutandis.

The learned Counsel for both the sides have been heard. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view, that, the present review application has no merit, and the same deserves to be rejected. The learned counsel for the applicant while referring to the operative part of the order and reiterating the main ground taken by him in his application, had vehemently argued that the order dated 11.9.1996, was flawed by an error, apparent on the face of the record, as the documents pertaining to registration of sale deed, Wills, General Power of Attorney and other documents, were being attested before the JointSubRegistrar at Ahmedgarh, and not at Malerkotla; moreover, distance between Malerkotla and Ahmedgarh is about 23 kms. and under these circumstances, the respondentBudh Singh, shall not be available to the village community for attestation of the documents. The learned counsel had asserted that, as the observation made by the learned Financial Commissioner was not basically correct, so, the order dated 11.9.1996 be reviewed, and the revision petition filed by Surjit Singh, be accepted and the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, as well as, the order passed by the Collector, Sangrur, be set aside, and the applicantSurjit Singh, be appointed as Lambardar. With a view to strengthen his arguments, the learned counsel had referred to the Certificate dated 18.10.1996, issued by the JointSubRegistrar, Ahmedgarh, Tehsil Malerkotla, to the effect that, all registration work of documents, pertaining to village Manki, was done at the SubTehsil office at Ahmedgarh. This Certificate was attached with the application for review.

In this regard, it may be pointed out, that, this fact was not averred in the revision petition dated 9.2.1996, filed against the order dated 27.11.1995, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, and has been pleaded only in the application for review. A Financial Commissioner as a Revenue Officer, no doubt can review the order, if he finds some mistake or error, which may be of fact or law, on the face of the record; but, in the instant case there is no mistake or error on the face of the record and an extraneous matter (a Certificate dated 18.10.1996, issued by the Joint SubRegistrar, Ahmedgarh in this case), has been brought on the record to show the incorrectness of the observation made by my learned predecessor. So, no ground for granting review of the order dated 11.9.1996, has been made out. Even otherwise, except the words "Registration of Documents", the remaining observation made in the concluding paragraph of the impugned order, is factually correct.

In fact, the applicant wants me to reappraise the entire evidence brought on the record and to arrive at a different conclusion; for which, I am afraid, the review jurisdiction cannot be exercised. Moreover, the District Collector, Sangrur, the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, as well as, my learned predecessor, had not found any merit in the applicant's case, and had rejected his claim throughout, in their concurrent findings.

In view of the above discussion, the present application for review, is hereby rejected.

For Orders.

The case was adjourned to 8.10.1997.

Announced.