1996 (3) TMI 546 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms jurisdiction for correcting fraudulent land assignment under Displaced Persons Act.

Financial Commissioner (Taxation) Punjab & ors. Versus Harbhajan Singh

The Supreme Court held that the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) had jurisdiction to correct the fraudulent land assignment order under the Displaced ... - Issues:- Grant of land in revenue estate of Karbara in Ludhiana District- Transfer of land under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954- Mutation of land in collusion with revenue officials- Jurisdiction of Financial Commissioner (Taxation) to correct orders under Section 33 of the ActAnalysis:The appeal before the Supreme Court pertains to the grant of 11 kanals 7 marlas of land in the revenue estate of Karbara in Ludhiana District. The respondent, a displaced person, had initially applied for the transfer of 7 kanals 15 marlas of land, which was granted and finalized in 1966. Subsequently, the respondent colluded with revenue officials to mutate his name in the records for additional land in 1967 and sought assignment under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. A Settlement Officer granted the assignment in 1969, but upon discovering the fraud, the same officer, acting as Settlement Commissioner, set aside the order in 1971. This decision was challenged through a revision under Section 33 of the Act, which was upheld by the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) of the Government of Punjab in 1971.The primary issue addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) had the jurisdiction to correct the order passed by the Settlement Officer under Section 33 of the Act. Section 33 empowers the Central Government to call for records of proceedings under the Act and pass orders deemed necessary, provided they are not inconsistent with the Act or its rules. The Court clarified that the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) as a delegate of the Central Government possessed the authority to revise orders after reviewing the circumstances of the case. Despite the settled legal principle that an officer cannot review their own decision, the Commissioner had the power under Section 33 to rectify the fraudulent assignment granted to the respondent, even if it was brought to his attention through a revision by the respondent himself, akin to a suo review.The Court emphasized that the authorities had established that the respondent, in collusion with lower-level revenue officials, had obtained an additional assignment fraudulently after his brother had already been granted land. Therefore, the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) was justified in correcting the order in his revisional jurisdiction. The Court overturned the Division Bench's decision, which had set aside the order based on a jurisdictional error, and upheld the single judge's decision and the authorities' actions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Division bench's order was set aside, and no costs were awarded in the matter.