LexTHE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (TAXATION) PUNJAB AND ORS. versus HARBHAJAN SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (TAXATION) PUNJAB AND ORS. v. HARBHAJAN SINGH MARCH 22, 1996 (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 'Displaced Perso11s (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. C . S.33-f'ower of Financial Commissioner (Taxation) to revise the order of Settlement Office1-Settlement Officer granting assignment to respondent a11d later setting aside the same on the ground of fraud-111 revisio11 filed by respondellt, Fi11ancial Commissioner (Taxatio11) upholding the cancella- tio11-High Cowt setting aside the order holding that Settlement Officer had 110 jurisdiction to sit over the order as appellate authority-Held, though D Settleme11t Officer could 11ot sit over his order as Chief Settlement Commis- sio11er, the Fi11ai1cial Commissioner (Taxatio11) as a delegate of Central Govemme11t has power to revise any order after calling for the relevant record and has got the power to con·ect the saine in his revisional jurisdiction-High Court not justified in quashing the orders. E F Guiab Ajwa11i & Ors. v. Saraswati Bai & Ors., [1977) 3 SCC 581, referred to. CIVIL .APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6905 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 12.1.89 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 526 of 1982 D.B. · Manoj Swarup and Girish Chandra for the Appellants. G R.P. Wadhwani for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. H We have heard learned counsel on both the sides. 812 I -. ' '· \ ·.~ \ FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (TAXATION) PUNJAB'· HARBHAJAN SINGH 813 This appe~l relate~ to the grant of 11 · Kanals 7 m 0 arlas of Ian\! in A revenue estate of Karbara in Ludhiana District. The respondent and his brother Jawahar Singh, s/o Gurdit Singh being displaced persons; his brother had applied for· transfer of 7 kanals 15 marlas. It was accordingly granted to him and it became fi~al by proceedings d~ted 'August 17, 1966. Thereafter, in the collusion with the revenue offici~ls the respondent got his name mutated in the. records .with regard to .the l~nd in the ye~r 1967 B and asked for assignm~nt of the s'ame under the Di~placed.Persons (Com- pensation and R~habilitation) Act, 1954 (for ~h~rt, ·the ;Act'). One Mr. j.s. Quami, Seit\ement Office; gr;nted asslgiiinent to the. respolldent on Augusi 29, 1969:' Thereafter:,"when it'~as 'noticed that 'the mutation was obtained. by phiying' fraud, the self-same officer as Settlement Commis- C sioner, by proceedings ilated i6:9.1971,. set aside the order. It came to be challenged by filing of a reVision under Se~tion 33 .of the Act:' The Financial Commissioner (Taxation)', Government of Punjab upheld the cancellation by his proceedings dated November 25, 1971.. When. the .respondent filed the writ petition, the learned sing!~ Judge by order dated January 12, 1989, D dismissed the. \vrit petition. The Division Bench by judgment and order dated January 12, 1989 in LP A No. 526/82 has set aside the order on the finding that J.S: Qaumi having exeri:ised the power as Settlement Officer 'f has no jurisdiction. to sit over the same order as appellate authority as Chief Settlement Commissioner. Therefore, the .order .is vitiated by error of law. )i The question is : whether the order passed by J.S. Qaumi as Settle- ment Officer could be corrected by the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) under Section 33 of the Act ? Section 33 reads as under : E "33. The Central Government may at any time call for the record F of any proceeding under this Act and· may pass such order in relation thereto as in its opinion the circumstances of the. case re4uire and as is not inconsistent with ~y of the provIS1ons contained in this Act or the rules made therennder." A reading thereof would clearly indicate that the Financial Commis- G sioner (Taxation) as a delegate of the Centra!Government has power to revise any. order after calling for record in relation thereto· and if in his opinion the circumstances of the case require and the order passed is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder, he has got power to correct the sam.e. It is true, as rightly contend.ed by the H 814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996]3 S.C.R. A learned counsel for the respondent, that J.S. Qaumi having granted assign- ment as Settlement Officer, could not sit over his order as Chief Settlement B . Commissioner. This is the settled legal position and needs no reit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.