HARBANS SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed under Section 82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. for reviewing the order (8.5.1996) passed by Shri C.L. Bains, IAS, Financial Commissioner Cooperation whereby the revision petition (R.O.R. No. 504 of 1994-95) was dismissed with the finding that none of the petitioners qualifies the condition of 30 years continuous possession of the land in question nor they were entitled to get benefit under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.

(2.) I have heard the arguments propounded by both parties. Counsel for respondent No. 2 and Senior State Counsel on behalf of the State raised preliminary objections that Financial Commissioner cannot review his own order or the order of his predecessor on the ground that he has taken wrong view of the law and proper remedy of the petitioners was by way of Writ Petition for certiorari which can interfere in the order where a wrong view has been taken. The counsel referred various rulings of this court as well as of Hon'ble High Court viz 1996 PLJ 76 head note (B), 1981 LLT 28 etc. The counsel for the petitioners rebutted this point stating that the powers of Financial Commissioner to review an order are not subject to any such restriction. Of course person who will be effected by modification as reversal of an order must be given an opportunity of being heard in its support. It was also said that in the instant case, review is maintainable because Financial Commissioner Cooperation has not rightly interpreted judgment of Supreme Court in AIR 1966 SC 605, wherein it was laid down that if at a particular stage a person is found to be in possession, his possession is to be presumed even earlier to that stage as well as subsequent to that stage. The petitioners are presumed to be in possession even earlier to 1967.

(3.) I am inclined to agree with the contentions of the counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Senior State Counsel.