BALBIR SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents, Thakar Dass, made an application under Section 4 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (Punjab Act No. 8 of 1953) (for short, the Occupancy Act), for the determination of the compensation payable to him. As a matter of fact this application undisputably had been signed and verified by Hardwari Lal, Mukhtiar-i-Am (General Attorney) of Thakar Dass. The legal practitioner engaged to pursue these proceedings before the revenue officers was too undisputably engaged by Hardwari Lal. Before the Collector to whom the application had been made an objection was raised by the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, Mann Singh, that Hardwari Lal could not be treated as an authorised agent of Thakar Dass in view of the notification dated November 1, 1987 issued under the provisions of Section 86 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for short, the Tenancy Act) as his principal, that is, Thakar Dass was a resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Collector. The Collector accepting this plea of Man Singh, dismissed the application. The said order of the Collector was again affirmed by the Commissioner on an appeal filed by Thakar Dass. It was during the pendency of this appeal that Thakar Dass died and the present respondents were brought on record as his legal representatives. These respondents challenged the order of the Commissioner before the Financial Commissioner who vide his order dated March 15, 1971, now impugned in this petition, held that the notification issued by the State Government under Section 86(1) of the Tenancy Act did not debar Hardwari Lal from verifying the application under Section 4 of the Occupancy Act in view of the provisions of Rule 2 framed under the Tenancy Act read with the Code of Civil Procedure. Though an argument had been raised before him by the petitioners (now respondents) that the finding recorded by the subordinate officers to the effect that Thakar Dass was a resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Collector who initially decided the application under Section 4 of the Occupancy Act was not correct and was not based on any material, yet the Financial Commissioner did not choose to record a categorical finding on that.

(2.) The above noted order of the Financial Commissioner (Annexure 'C') is now impugned on the sole ground that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not attracted to the facts of this case and that Hardwari Lal was not the recognised agent of Thakar Dass in terms of Section 86(1)(b) read with the notification of the State Government dated November 1, 1987, Section 86 reads as follows :-

(3.) After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I find weight in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to refer to any provision of law according to which, as is sought to be contended by him, the Mukhtiar-i-Am of Thakar Dass could not engage a lawyer on his behalf to pursue the proceedings before the revenue authorities launched with the filing of the application under Section 4 of the Occupancy Act. He, however, seeks to contend that as Hardwari Lal had not been found to be an authorised agent in terms of Section 86(1) of the Tenancy Act and was, therefore, debarred from making an application or putting in appearance before the revenue officers by virtue of those provisions, he cannot also be said to be authorised to engage a lawyer on behalf of his principal. As already indicated, I find no substance in this contention. The disabilities of the authorised agent or what he cannot do before the revenue officer in terms of Section 86(1) of the Tenancy Act, are specified in that Section. What is laid down therein is that such an authorised agent cannot make an application or cannot put in appearance before the revenue officer. Thus this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners stands repelled.