SUKHMANDER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHINDER Singh (respondent No. 5) filed an application for partition of joint land on the basis of Jamabandi for the year 1991-92. The petitioners had purchased specific Khasra numbers of land from Gurdev Singh and Sukhdev Singh (respondents No. 6 and 7) vide registered sale deeds dated 29/30.11.1994 which were corrected by the Sub Registrar, Faridkot vide order dated 12.12.1996. Mutation of the land purchased by the petitioners was sanctioned in their favour on 12.12.1996. In the application filed by Mohinder Singh (respondent No. 5), the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Faridkot vide order dated 15.4.2008 (Annexure-P.2) held that partition cannot be effected as question of title arises in the case. Accordingly, both the parties were directed to get the question of title decided from civil Court before partition can be done. Mohinder Singh (respondent No. 5) aggrieved against the said order filed an appeal before the Collector/SDM, Faridkot, who vide order dated 29.7.2008 (Annexure-P.3) held that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Faridkot had not mentioned as to how the question of title arises in the partition application. It was further held that no question of title arises in the case. Accordingly, the order dated 15.4.2008 (Annexure-P.2) was set aside and the matter remanded to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Faridkot. Against the order of the Collector/SDM, Faridkot, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot who vide order dated 29.4.2009 (Annexure-P.4) held that it appeared that there was no question of title involved in the instant case. The appellants (petitioners) had failed to produce even an iota of evidence to prove as to how question of title was involved in this case. Accordingly, it was held that there was no force in the appeal and the same was dismissed. Against the order of the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab, who vide order dated 11.8.2009 (Annexure-P.5) dismissed the revision in limine.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioners a question of title is involved in the present case, inasmuch as, the petitioners had purchased the land from Gurdev Singh and Sukhdev Singh (respondents No. 6 and 7) after family partition amongst the co-sharers of the land. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to raise the question of title which they would not be able to do so in view of the orders dated 29.7.2008 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Collector/SDM, Faridkot and the order dated 29.4.2009 (Annexure-P.4) passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot.

(3.) A perusal of the above shows that the learned Financial Commissioner duly considered the case of the petitioners regarding question of title and noticed the contention of the petitioners that question of title was involved. It was also considered that since the Collector had pointed out that there was no question of title they (petitioners) would not be able to raise any objection before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. However, the said contention was not accepted as correct and it was held that the remand was only for fresh order and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade would be duty bound to give opportunity to both the parties in detail and take a fresh decision. Therefore, the said observations clearly mean and include that question of title if involved or not would be determined by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade before proceeding with the partition application. Even otherwise, it may be noticed that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade in his order dated 15.4.2008 (Annexure-P.2) had merely observed that question of title arises in this case. However, in appeal the Collector/Sub Divisional Magistrate in his order dated 29.7.2008 (Annexure-P.3) held that the Assistant Collector had not stated as to how the question of title arises in the partition application. It was on this account that the Collector-cum-SDM, Faridkot vide order dated 29.7.2008 (Annexure-P.3) set aside the order of the Assistant Collector Grade-I which was affirmed vide order dated 29.4.2009 (Annexure-P.4) passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot. Indeed, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Faridkot did not record any reasons as to how question of title was involved in this case. It is well known that giving of reasons in support of a decision is a facet of the principles of natural justice. According to this, a party has a right to know not only the result of the case but reasons in support of the decision. Recording of reasons is also necessary for an effective judicial review of the order. The revenue authorities, therefore, while passing quasi judicial order under the Punjab Land Revenue Act it is expected record reasons in support of their decisions. This would be a visible safeguard against likely injustice and arbitrariness. Besides, it affords protection to the person adversely affected. Therefore, the order dated 15.4.2008 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade without recording reasons in support of the same has rightly been invalidated and the matter is to be considered afresh in accordance with the observations of the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab as recorded in the order dated 11.4.2009 (Annexure-P.5).