Petitioner challenged dismissal of writ petition on grounds of no CPC applicability and issuance of partition deed. Court rejected these, citing Constitutional writ powers and Section 16(1), remanding matter for merits consideration.
Order of Financial Commissioner set aside; case remanded to consider amendment of written statement on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13428 OF 2006 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 21, 2009
Puran Singh @ Sampuran Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Financial Commissioner (Development), Punjab, Chandigarh and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
PRESENT:
Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. Amandeep Agnihotri, Advocate, for respondent Nos.5 to 8.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Respondent Nos.5 to 8 filed application for partition of a
land mentioned in the writ petition. The petitioner appeared in response to notice and filed written statement. He, however, could not bring out certain relevant facts in the reply so filed. He accordingly moved an application seeking permission to file amended written statement. Notice of this application was issued to the respondents. The application seeking amendment, however, was
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13428 OF 2006 :{ 2 }:
dismissed on 2.12.2003. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same, which was dismissed by Collector on 8.7.2004. The revision filed against the said order was also dismissed on 2.6.2005 and so was the fate of the petition filed by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner. In fact, the petition filed before the Financial Commissioner has been dismissed on the ground that it has become infructuous without going into the merits.
Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rajpura, rejected the application by simply observing that at that stage written statement can not be amended. This in fact was no valid reason to decline the prayer for amendment of the writ petition. The appeal filed before the Collector was dismissed on the ground that there was no provision in the Punjab Land Revenue Act to amend the written statement. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The Commissioner also up-held the order, saying that the petitioner has not been able to give satisfactory explanation for the discrepancies mentioned by the Collector in his order. The Financial Commissioner did not go into the merits of the controversy and dismiss the petition filed before him only on the ground that instrument of partition (Sanad Takseem) was issued by the Collector and so the revision petition had become infructuous.
On a notice having been issued, respondent Nos.5 to 7 have put in appearance and have filed reply. A preliminary objection has been raised, saying that the petitioner had challenged the interim order whereas now the partition proceedings have come to an end and instrument of partition issued. It is accordingly pleaded that the case of partition is rendered infructuous. In the reply, it is also
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13428 OF 2006 :{ 3 }:
disclosed that the amendment sought now would be meaningless. It is stated by the counsel during the course of arguments that the suit filed by the petitioner has already been decided and he is not held entitled to the land, which he wants to claim by way of filing an amended written statement. The counsel for the respondents accordingly stated that no useful purpose would now be served by allowing this amendment.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The view taken by the collector and upheld by the Commissioner that the amendment of the written statement can not be permitted as the provisions of CPC do not apply to the proceedings before a revenue Court would not depict a totally correct position. No doubt, the provisions of CPC may not apply to such proceedings but still the principle contained in the Civil Procedure Code would apply, especially on an aspect when the provisions in the Punjab Land Revenue Act are silent. Thus, denying the prayer of the petitioner only on the ground that there is no provision for amendment and that CPC would not apply can not be accepted as fully correct position in law. The Financial Commissioner instead of going into the merits on this ground, simply held that the petition before him was rendered infrucutous as Sanad Takseem stood issued. This can not again be accepted as correct position in law. In a recent decision dated 15.5.2007 given by Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.19985 of 2005 ( Resham Singh @ Dilbagh Singh Vs. Assistant Collector Ist Grade-cum-Tehsildar,
Phillaur & others), it has been observed that it is true that Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 does not provide for an appeal against
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13428 OF 2006 :{ 4 }:
Sanad Takseem, but still went on to hold that an aggrieved person cannot be left without a forum to seek redress. It is further observed that finality attached to a Sanad Takseem can always be impugned by invoking the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or suo-motu powers, conferred upon the Financial Commissioner can also be invoked in this regard. The court ultimately held as under:-
“In our considered opinion, powers, conferred by Section 16(1) of the Act, would take within their ambit a quasijudicial appraisal of the legality of the Sanad Takseem. An aggrieved person may, in exceptional circumstances, invoke the Financial Commissioner's jurisdiction, under Section 16(1) of the Act. Section 16(1) of the Act confers suo motu revisional powers upon the Financial Commissioner to call for and examine the legality of any proceeding, pending before or decided by a revenue officer. We are, thus, satisfied that in the first instance, the petitioner should have approached the Court of the Financial Commissioner by way of a revision. Consequently, but without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the controversy, the petitioner is relegated to the remedy, as held herein above.”
Accordingly, the view taken by the Financial Commissioner that the revision was rendered infructous and dismissed in limine only on the ground that Sanad Takseem was issued, can not be upheld.
The counsel for the respondents, however, very
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13428 OF 2006 :{ 5 }:
vehemently argued that no useful purpose would now be served in allowing this amendment on the ground that the suit, on the basis of which amended written statement was sought to be filed, has already been decided, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any more land. This aspect of the submission may not require any adjudication as this was not the ground on which the impugned orders were passed. The authorities came to decline the prayer of the petitioner only on the ground that provisions of CPC are not applicable and not on the ground that the amendment to the written statement was not necessary in view of any facts that may have subsequently come into existence.
Accordingly, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner can not be sustained and the same is set-aside. The case is remanded back to the Financial Commissioner, who will consider the submissions made by the petitioner, seeking amendment of the written statement on merits. He would also see whether the amendment of written statement as sought by the petitioner can be allowed or not and accordingly would pass an order in accordance with law. The respondents would be at liberty to raise all these pleas that are available to them before the Financial Commissioner.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
March 21,2009 khurmi
( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether provisions of CPC apply to proceedings before a revenue court for amendment of writ petition.
Whether the writ petition becomes infructuous solely because a Sanad Takseem was issued.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to invoke Financial Commissioner's jurisdiction under Section 16(1) despite finality of partition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Resham Singh @ Dilbagh Singh Vs. Assistant Collector Ist Grade-cum-Tehsildar, Phillaur & othersReferred¶28
Civil Writ Petition No.19985 of 2005 (Resham Singh @ Dilbagh Singh Vs. Assistant Collector Ist Grade-cum-Tehsildar, Phillaur & others)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Puran Singh @ Sampuran Singh
Financial Commissioner (Development), Punjab, Chandigarh
RANJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
