Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harminder Singh And Others vs Financial Commissioner Pb.Etc on 5 July, 2024
212
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-14966-1998 (O&M)
Date of decision : 05.07.2024
HARMINDER SINGH AND OTHERS
...Petitioners
Versus
THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER APPEALS
APPEALS-I
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present : Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Varun Parkash, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab.
HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL)
Petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of
certiorari/mandamus for setting aside the order 11.11.1988 (Annexure P
P-4)
4)
passed by the learned Collector, Patiala Distric
District, Patiala and also the order
dated 20.01.1998 (Annexure P-6)
P 6) passed by respondent No.1
No.1-Financial
Financial
Commissioner Appeals-I,
Appeals I, Punjab; whereby, mutation No.975 of Village
Alipur Araian, Tehsil and District Patiala, sanctioned on the basis of a Civil
Court decree
decree dated 21.03.1970 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class,
Patiala, has been upheld.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh
2. Briefly, the mother of respondent No.5 and paternal
grandmother of petitioners, Smt. Narinder Kaur widow of Mohinder Singh,
filed a Civil Suit in the Court of learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Patiala on
05.03.1970, seeking maintenance of Rs.50/- p.m from her sons namely,
Sukhbir Singh and Virender Singh sons of Mohinder Singh (Predecessor-
in-interest of petitioners) or in lieu thereof, for possession of 125 bighas of
agricultural land, situated in Village Alipur Aarian.
2.1 It appears that the afore-said Civil Suit filed by
Smt. Narinder Kaur came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated
21.03.1970 (Annexures P-1 and P-2), whereby decree for possession of suit
land except khasra Nos.883, 884 and 889, in lieu of maintenance was
granted.
2.2 In pursuance to the afore-said decree dated 21.03.1970,
mutation No.975 was entered in favour of Smt. Narinder Kaur and the same
was subsequently sanctioned by the concerned Assistant Collector on
11.09.1972.
2.3 It transpires that an application dated 11.02.1988 came to be
filed by petitioner No.6 herein namely, Inderbir Singh son of
Sukhbir Singh, stating that there was an error in the mutation No.975
inasmuch as that Narinder Kaur was shown as owner of the suit land,
whereas the Civil Court had granted only a decree of possession of the land
in question in lieu of maintenance only.
2.4 It further transpires that the Revenue authorities entered a fresh
mutation No.2787, which was declared contested by the Assistant Collector
IInd Grade and the matter was referred to Additional Deputy
Commissioner-cum-Collector, Patiala, who vide its order dated 24.02.1988
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh
gave permission to the Assistant Collector, Patiala to review the mutation
No.975.
2.5. Acting upon the afore-said permission to review the mutation,
the then Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patiala, passed an order dated
05.04.1988 (Annexure P-3), directing that the original ownership, as
recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 1968-69 be restored in favour of
Sukhbir Singh and Virender Singh (Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners)
in equal shares. It appears that by that time, Sukhbir Singh had expired;
accordingly, a further direction was issued that a mutation be entered in the
name of Virender Singh (1/2 share) and remaining ½ share be sanctioned in
the name of legal heirs of deceased Sukhbir Singh i.e. Harkesh Kaur widow
of Sukhbir Singh, Inderbir Singh son of Sukhbir Singh and Gurveen Kaur
daughter of Sukhbir Singh.
2.6 The afore-said order dated 05.04.1988 (Annexure P-3) came to
be challenged by present respondent No.5 (Hardarshan Kaur) by way of an
appeal before the learned Collector, Patiala; which was allowed by the
learned Collector, vide its order dated 11.11.1988 (Annexure P-4) and the
order dated 05.04.1988 (Annexure P-3) was set aside and the matter was
remitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Patiala, for deciding the case
afresh.
2.7 It appears that the predecessors of present petitioners No.1 to 5
namely, Virender Singh and also the legal heirs of Sukhbir Singh
(petitioner Nos.6 to 8, herein) challenged the afore-said order dated
11.11.1988 (Annexure P-4) by way of Revenue Appeal No.19 of 1989
before the learned Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. The said
Revenue Appeal No.19 of 1989 came to be allowed by learned
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh
Commissioner vide its order dated 05.10.1994 (Annexure P-5), whereby he
set aside the order dated 11.11.1988 (Annexure P-4).
2.8 Thereafter, the present respondent No.5 (Hardarshan Kaur)
challenged the afore-said order dated 05.10.1994 (Annexure P-5) passed by
the learned Commissioner, by filing a Revision petition (ROR No.20 of
1995-96) before the learned Financial Commissioner Appeals-I, Punjab;
which came to be allowed vide order dated 20.01.1988 (Annexure P-6) and
the entire review proceedings initiated on 24.02.1988 and culminating into
the order dated 05.10.1994 passed by learned Commissioner were held to
be unlawful.
3. In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present writ petition
has been filed before this Court, for grant of relief, as noticed here-in-
above.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the
afore-mentioned facts, submitted that the impugned orders are wrong,
illegal and perverse being contrary to the facts as well as the decree dated
21.03.1970. It is submitted that vide aforesaid decree (Annexure P-2), no
ownership rights were conveyed to Smt. Narinder Kaur; therefore, the
mutation No.975 reflecting the ownership of Smt. Narinder Kaur was not
correct and was rightly reviewed/corrected by the Revenue authorities. It is,
therefore, contended that the learned Financial Commissioner has wrongly
declared the review proceedings relating to mutation No.975 as illegal.
Accordingly, prayer has been made that the impugned orders be set aside.
5. Respondent no.5 (Hardarshan Kaur), who is the daughter of
Smt. Narinder Kaur, has contested the present writ petition by filing her
detailed written statement, wherein it has been inter alia stated that the
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh
Civil Court decree dated 21.03.1970 (Annexure P-2) was passed on the
basis of a compromise arrived at between Smt. Narinder Kaur and her two
sons namely, Sukhbir Singh and Varinder Singh, which is reflected in the
application under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC (Annexure R/3).
5.1 It is the stand of respondent No.5 that Smt. Narinder Kaur was
handed over the possession of 111 bighas-18 biswas of land as owner, in
terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties and they had
appeared before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, who sanctioned the
mutation No.975 vide order dated 11.09.1972, showing Smt. Narinder Kaur
as owner in possession. It is further borne out from the written statement
filed by respondent No.5 that the afore-said mutation entry came to be
reflected in subsequent Jamabandi for the year 1973-74 (Annexure R-6). It
is also stated that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had filed
another Civil Suit No.162 of 1982, challenging the revenue entries;
however, the said suit was dismissed in default on 14.02.1983 (Annexure
R/7). It is further stated that it is only after the sanction of mutation No.975
in favour of Smt. Narinder Kaur and after the dismissal of the Civil Suit
No.162 of 1982; an application for review of Mutation No.975 was filed by
petitioner No.6, which was clearly barred by limitation. It is stated that the
review application filed by petitioner No.6 was not maintainable and the
same has been rightly set aside by learned Financial Commissioner by
giving detailed reasons. It is still further stated that once the predecessor-in-
interest of the petitioners had already availed of their remedy/ies by filing a
Civil Suit, to challenge the entries in the revenue records and the same
having been dismissed vide order dated 14.02.1983 (Annexure P-7),
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh
therefore, the petitioners have no right to challenge the said entries. It is,
therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
6. Upon considering the afore-said stand of the respective parties
and upon perusal of the paper-book, it is observed that the Civil Court
decree dated 21.03.1970 (Annexure P-2) was passed on the basis of a
settlement arrived at between Smt. Narinder Kaur and her two sons namely,
Sukhbir Singh and Varinder Singh. The terms of settlement arrived at
between the parties is reflected in the application under Order 23 Rule 3 of
CPC, the relevant extract of which reads as under :-
a) That the defendants realizing the needs of
the plaintiff for maintenance have agreed to allow her
possession as owner of 111 bighas 18 biswas of
agricultural land situated in Village Akipur Rayian
comprising of Khewat Khatauni Number 24/25 Khasra
Numbers 778 to 781, 783, 790, 791 to 799, khewat
Khatauni No.180/298, Khasra Numbers 782, 784 to 789
measuring 5-12, 3-4, 4-13, 5-16, 2-10, 6-5, 6-5, 3-10, 3-
10, 6-5, 6-5, 6-5, 6-5, 6-5, 4-8, 4-7 and 5-18, 7-4, 5-0, 2-
16, 3-10, 6-5 and 6-5 respectively gillas 22 per jamabandi
for the year 1968-69. A copy of the fard numberwar is
enclosed herewith.
b) That in lieu of the above mentioned land,
the plaintiff shall not claim any other fresh maintenance
or right of maintenance from the defendants."
A perusal of the afore-said terms would clearly indicate that
Sukhbir Singh and Varinder Singh (predecessor-in-interest of petitioners)
had agreed to allow possession to Smt. Narinder Kaur as owner in respect
of 111 bighas 18 biswas of agricultural land of Village Alipur Araian.
7. Concededly, mutation No.975 was entered and sanctioned by
the Revenue authorities wherein Smt. Narinder Kaur was reflected as owner
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh
in possession of the land in question. It is further borne out from the
paper-book that the aforesaid mutation was duly reflected in the subsequent
revenue record i.e. jamabandi for the year 1973-74 (Annexure R/6) wherein
Smt. Narinder Kaur is reflected as the owner of the land transferred to her.
It is not disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
that Sukhbir Singh and Varinder Singh (predecessor-in-interest of
petitioners) during their life time and also during the life time of
Smt. Narinder Kaur had filed a Civil Suit No.162 of 13.05.1982, wherein
the following prayer was made :-
"Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are
owners in possession of property bearing Kh. No.778, 779,
780, 781, 790, 791. 799, 782, 784, 785, 786, 787, 788 and 789
situated in Revenue Estate of Village Alipur Araian, Tehsil and
District Patiala and any entry contrary to this effect is wrong
and is not binding upon the plaintiff and is, therefore, be
cancelled and the revenue authorities be directed to correct
their record accordingly."
The said Civil Suit No.162 of 13.05.1982 was dismissed on
14.02.1983. Apparently, said order dated 14.02.1983 has attained finality as
the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has failed to show
any other order reflecting that the said order dated 14.02.1983 was ever set
aside.
8. It is also not disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners that petitioner No.6 (Inderbir Singh) had sought review
of Mutation no.975 by filing an application dated 11.02.1988 i.e. after a
period of more than 15 years from the date of sanctioning of mutation
No.975 in favour of Smt. Narinder Kaur on 11.09.1972.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh
9. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, I am of the
considered view that once Sukhbir Singh and Varinder Singh (predecessor-
in-interest of the petitioners) had agreed to allow possession of 111 bighas
- 18 biswas of agricultural land of Village Alipur Araian, to
Smt. Narinder Kaur, as owner and mutation No.975 was also sanctioned
regarding change of ownership in favour of Narinder Kaur; coupled with
the fact that subsequent to sanctioning of mutation No.975,
Smt. Narinder Kaur was reflected in the revenue records (Jamabandi for the
year 1973-74) as owner in possession and also that the Civil Suit No.162 of
13.05.1982 filed by Sukhbir Singh and Varinder Singh (predecessor-in-
interest of the petitioners), challenging the revenue entries reflecting
Narinder Kaur, as owner of the subject land, was dismissed on 14.02.1983;
there was no occasion for petitioner No.6 (Inderbir Singh) to have
sought review of mutation No.975 and that too, after a period of more than
15 years when mutation No.975 was sanctioned.
9.1 Even otherwise, in terms of Section 45 of the Punjab Land
Revenue Act, 1887, it is provided that if any person considers himself
aggrieved as to any right of which he is in the possession, by an entry in a
record of rights or in an annual record, he may institute a suit for a
declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877
(now Specific Relief Act, 1963). In my view, the afore-said remedy was
availed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners by filing Civil Suit
No.162 of 13.05.1982, which was dismissed on 14.02.1983 and the said
order has attained finality. Therefore, the action of the petitioners to seek
review of mutation No.975, was an abuse of process of law.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh
10. Furthermore, the learned Financial Commissioner, vide its
order dated 20.01.1998, while setting aside the entire review proceedings
concerning mutation No.975, observed as under :-
"6. I have heard the arguments of the counsel
for the parties and also gone through the record. The
Collector has clearly brought on record that A.D.C.,
Patiala did not enjoy the powers of Collector for purposes
of review. This review was ordered within 13 days of filing
of application before Assistant Collector Grade-II by
Inderbir Singh. No notice was sent to any interested party
and the fact that the application was being made 15 years
late was overlooked. Since the District Collector alone was
competent to order review, the order of A.D.C. dated
24.2.1998, and subsequent order of District Grievances
Officer dated 5.4.1988 are both without jurisdiction and
illegal abinitio. Since the entire subsequent proceedings
were vitiated on that account, the Commissioner was
wrong in observing that the order of the Collector was bad
in law. Under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act, 187, the
following provisions exist in relation to review by Revenue
Officers :-
"(1) A Revenue Officer may, either of his own
motion or on the application of any party interested,
review and on so reviewing modify, reverse or confirm,
any order passed by himself or by any of his
predecessors in office :-
Provided as follow :
(a) when a Commissioner or Collector thinks it
necessary to review any order, which he has not himself
passed, and when a Revenue Officer of a class below
that of Collector proposes to review any order, whether
passed by himself or by any of his predecessors in office,
he shall first obtain the sanction of the Revenue Officer
to whose control he is immediately subject :
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh
(b) an application for review of an order shall
not be entertained unless it is made within ninety days
from the passing of the order or unless the applicant
satisfies the Revenue officer that he has sufficient cause
for not making the application within that period."
The Act clearly lays down that an application for review
shall not be entertained unless it is made within ninety days
from the passing of the order, or unless the applicant
satisfies the Revenue Officer that he had sufficient cause
for not making the application within that period. In this
case although the review application was filed after more
than 15 years the sanctioning officer did not make any
effort to satisfy himself regarding the reasons for delay.
The order dated 24.2.88 is violative of the statutory
provision relating to review.
7. It is a matter of record that Sukhbir Singh and
Varinder Singh had filed a civil suit against their mother
Narinder Kaur on 13.12.1982 which was dismissed on
14.2.1983 in default. This suit was binding and final
between the parties as no restoration was sought. The
registered will which Narinder Kaur had executed in
favour of the children of Hardarshan Kaur, petitioner, was
also held to be genuine by the District Judge. It is evident
that the respondents approached the Revenue Authorities
after un-successfully trying their luck in the Civil Court
and the lower Revenue authorities willingly obliged them
by entering a fresh mutation. It is quite evident that the
plea of `fard badar' was not tenable in the present case as
there was no clerical mistake involved what the
respondents were seeking was an altogether different
interpretation of the civil court decree."
11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has failed to
dislodge the afore-said observations made by the learned Financial
Commissioner.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh
12. Resultantly, in view of what has been observed here-in-above,
I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
13. All pending application/s, if any, shall also stand closed.
July 05, 2024 (HARSH BUNGER)
gurpreet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh
