Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 592 (PNJ)

Bhagwana v. Financial Commissioner

2005-05-11

RAJIVE BHALLA

body2005
Judgment Rajive Bhalla, J. 1. Prayer in the present writ petition filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, quashing the impugned orders dated 7.3.1990 and 6.1.1994 passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (Annexures P-9 and P-10 respectively.) 2. The petitioners, Initiated proceedings for partition of the land in dispute. Respondents No. 3 to 6, preferred an application for being impleaded as a party, on the premise that they were shareholders in the land in dispute. The petitioners opposed the application, contending that the question of title stood settled inter-parties against the respondents. 3. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Gurgaon, vide order dated 12,1.1988, directed the parties to seek adjudication of the question of title, before an appropriate forum and simultaneously stayed the proceedings for partition. 4. In-an appeal, filed by the petitioners, the Collector, Gurgaon vide order dated 30.5.1988, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector, and held that no question of title arose as it had already been adjudicated upon . Partition proceedings were directed to commence. 5. Respondents No. 3 to 6, impugned the above order by way of a Revision filed before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon. The Commissioner recommended for the acceptance of the revision petition, to the Financial Commissioner on the ground that a question of title, had arisen inter parties. 6. The Financial Commissioner accepted the revision, set aside the order passed by the Collector and restored the order passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, thus, staying the partition proceedings and directing the parties to seek adjudication of the question of title before an appropriate forum. 7. Counsel for the petitioners, apart from raising various points, contends that the Financial Commissioner, accepted the recommendations forwarded by the Commissioner, without passing a speaking order. The Financial Commissioners order does not disclose the reasons that led (he Financial Commissioner to accept the recommendations. The order being non-speaking is liable to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Financial Commissioner for a decision afresh. 8. Counsel for the private respondents contends that the Financial Commissioner, need not have furnished detailed reasons, for accepting the recommendations made to him by the Commissioner. The order being non-speaking is liable to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Financial Commissioner for a decision afresh. 8. Counsel for the private respondents contends that the Financial Commissioner, need not have furnished detailed reasons, for accepting the recommendations made to him by the Commissioner. It was sufficient for the Financial Commissioner to express agreement with the recommendations made and, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and consequently the present writ petition be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The only reasons recorded by the Financial Commissioner, while accepting the revision petition are as follows:- "1 have gone through the well reasoned and speaking order of the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division and am in entire agreement with him that the petitioners appear to have a genuine and legitimate right to their share in the shamilat patti." 11. A perusal of the above extract, leaves no manner of doubt that the Financial Commissioner was in complete agreement with the order passed by the Commissioner. Be that as it may, the Financial Commissioner, being a quasi judicial authority, was required to record, howsoever briefly, the reasons, that persuaded him to agree with the order passed by the Commissioner. The impugned order, however, is devoid of any reasons. The Financial Commissioner is the final authority in the hierarchy of revenue officers/Courts under the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, his order being final. While discharging his statutory obligations, the Financial Commissioner is required to examine the matter on merits, and after noticing the facts and the respective contentions, pass an order accepting or rejecting the respective contentions. The Financial Commissioner must, elucidate, howsoever briefly, the process of reasoning as also the reasons that persuaded him to arrive at a conclusion for or against the matter in issue. 12. The impugned order falls far short of the requirement of a quasi judicial order, as elucidated above. The contention of counsel for the respondents that the Financial Commissioner is not required to assign any reason, while accepting recommendations, made by the Commissioner would in my opinion be a negation of the time honoured principle that assigning the reasons, for conclusions arrived at, is integral to the system of administration of justice. Failure to do so would be a failure of justice. 13. Failure to do so would be a failure of justice. 13. In view of what has been stated above, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 6.1.1994 is set aside and She matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, to adjudicate the entire dispute afresh, on merits and in accordance with law. 14. Before concluding, it would be appropriate to mention, that the parties would be at liberty to raise all pleas, that have been pleaded in the present proceedings. The present order shall not be construed to limit in any manner, their right to address arguments on all pleas raised in the present petition and available to them in law. 15. Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, on 11.7.2005, who shall make every endeavour to dispose of the revision petition within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.