Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a dispute over the grant of 11 kanals 7 marlas of land in revenue estate of Karbara, Ludhiana District, under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The respondent, Harbhajan Singh, and his brother Jawahar Singh were displaced persons. Jawahar Singh had applied for transfer of 7 kanals 15 marlas, which was granted and became final by proceedings dated August 17, 1966. Subsequently, in collusion with revenue officials, Harbhajan Singh got his name mutated in the records in 1967 and sought assignment of the land under the Act. J.S. Qaumi, as Settlement Officer, granted assignment to Harbhajan Singh on August 29, 1969. Upon noticing that the mutation was obtained by fraud, the same officer, now as Settlement Commissioner, set aside the assignment by proceedings dated September 16, 1971. Harbhajan Singh filed a revision under Section 33 of the Act, but the Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Government of Punjab, upheld the cancellation on November 25, 1971. Harbhajan Singh then filed a writ petition, which a single judge dismissed on January 12, 1983. In LPA No. 526 of 1982, the Division Bench allowed the appeal on January 12, 1989, holding that J.S. Qaumi, having exercised power as Settlement Officer, had no jurisdiction to sit over his own order as Chief Settlement Commissioner, and therefore the cancellation order was vitiated by error of law. The Supreme Court considered whether the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) could correct the settlement officer's order under Section 33 of the Act. Section 33 empowers the Central Government to call for the record of any proceeding under the Act and pass such order as circumstances require, not inconsistent with the Act or rules. The Court held that the Financial Commissioner, as a delegate of the Central Government, had wide revisional power to correct any order, including fraudulent mutations. It acknowledged the settled principle that an authority cannot sit in appeal over its own order, as laid down in Gulab Ajwani & Ors. v. Saraswati Bai, (1977) 3 SCC 581. However, the Court clarified that the Financial Commissioner's power under Section 33 was independent revisional jurisdiction, and even though the matter was brought to his notice by way of revision by the respondent himself treating it as a suo motu review, the Commissioner had authority to correct the fraudulent order. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench order and restored the orders of the single judge and the authorities, allowing the appeal with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope of Section 33 - Central Government delegate can revise any order under the Act - Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, Section 33 - The Financial Commissioner (Taxation) as delegate of the Central Government exercised revisional power to cancel fraudulent mutation and assignment despite earlier order passed by same officer as Settlement Officer. The Court held that the revisional power under Section 33 is wide and can correct orders even when brought to notice by the aggrieved party treating it as suo motu revision. Held that the High Court was not justified in quashing the orders. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Administrative Law - Bias - No Person Can Sit in Appeal Over Own Order - Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, Section 33 - The Court acknowledged the settled legal position that a Settlement Officer cannot sit as Chief Settlement Commissioner over his own order. However, the Court distinguished that the Financial Commissioner as delegate under Section 33 had independent revisional jurisdiction to correct fraudulent orders. Held that the Division Bench erred by focusing solely on J.S. Qaumi's lack of jurisdiction as appellate authority. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by J.S. Qaumi as Settlement Officer could be corrected by the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954?
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed. The Division Bench order was set aside, and the orders of the single judge and the authorities were upheld. No costs.
Law Points
- Section 33 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act
- 1954 confers wide revisional power on Central Government or delegate to call for records and pass appropriate orders
- Financial Commissioner (Taxation) as delegate can correct fraudulent mutations and assignments
- rule against bias/no person can sit in appeal over own order does not bar independent revisional jurisdiction under Section 33
- Gulab Ajwani & Ors. v. Saraswati Bai
- (1977) 3 SCC 581 followed
