BALBIR CHAND Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. of India has been filed seeking setting aside of the order dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab (respondent No. 1), the order dated 24.8.2000 (Annexure-P 4) passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala (respondent No. 2). the order dated 22.9.1997 (Annexure-P. 3) passed by the Collector Sub Division, Sunam (respondent No. 3) and the order dated 6.9.1996 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sunam (respondent No. 4)

(2.) PARSINI Devi (respondent No. 5) and other filed an application dated 26.8.1991 for partition of Land measuring 13 Kanals 16 Marlas situated at Village Sheron, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur. It was alleged by the said applicants that they were entitled to get the land partitioned as per their shares as recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 1985-86. The mode of partition was prepared on 27.10.1995. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide order dated 6.9.1906 (Annexure-P.2) approved 'Naksha Aarra'. Aggrieved against the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, Sub Division, Sunam, who vide order dated 22.9.1997 (Annexure-P.3) and 6.9.1996 (Annexure-P.2) filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala which has been dismissed vide order dated 24.8.2000 (Annexure-P.4). The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure-P.5).

(3.) AFTER giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the learned Financial Commissioner in his order dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure-P.5) has noticed that 'Sanad Takseem' was issued on 25.11.1997 by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. It is also noticed that Sukhdev Ram as per Jamabandi for the year 1985-86 has sold more land to Balbir Chand (petitioner) than his due share. It was noticed that Sukhdev Ram had sold land measuring 17 Kanals 16 Marlas whereas 'Naksha Bey' has been prepared keeping in view the right of the co sharers according to the Jamabandi for the year 1985-86. It was in the column of remarks it is recorded that Sukhdev Ram has sold 8 Kanals 9 Marlas of excess land. As such, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade has rightly allotted the actual share of 9 Kanals 9 Marlas and the claim of the petitioner was found to be unjust and unwarranted, besides against the law. No material has been placed on record to dislodge the said findings recorded by the Financial Commissioner. The contention that the sales in favour of the petitioner have been upheld in the civil suit decided on 22.11.1999 (Annexure-P.6) should not affect the actual share that had been sold. In terms of issue No. 2, the alienation of the suit property in favour of the petitioner have been upheld in the civil suit decided on 22.11.1999 (Annexure-P.6) should not affect the actual share that had been sold. In terms of issue No. 2. the alienation of the suit property in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 in the said suit which includes the petitioner vide sale deeds dated 30.3.1982 and 24.3.1983 was held to be valid. However, that does not mean that even the shares which were sold were determined. It is well known that a vendor can pass no better title than he himself had and in case a vendor sells land, more than his share, the sale would be valid only to the extent of his share. This aspect, in any case, is not liable to be gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction and the nature of shares are to be determined and calculated by the revenue authorities as per share of each owner. Besides, as already noticed, the 'Sanad Takseem' has been prepared on 25.11.1997 and it is well known that once 'Sand Takseem' has been prepared on 25.11.1997 and it is well known that once 'Sand Takseem' has been sanctioned the revenue authorities other than the Financial Commissioner cannot interfere with the same. The Financial Commissioner cannot interfere with the same. The Financial Commissioner in exercise of his power under Section 16 (1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 ('Act' - for short) can consider the same as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Resham Singh alias Dilbagh Singh v. Assistant Collector Ist Grade-cum-Tehsildar, Phillaur and others, (A.W.P. No. 19985 of 2005), decided on 15.5.2007, in which it has been observed that Section 16 (1) of the Act confers suo motu revisional powers upon the Financial Commissioner to call for and examine the legality of any proceedings, pending before or decided by a revenue officer. It was held that powers conferred under Section 16 (1) of the Act would take within its ambit a quasi-judicial appraisal of the legality of the 'Sanad Takseem' and an aggrieved person may, in exceptional circumstances, invoke the Financial Commissioner's jurisdiction, under section 16 (1) of the Act. This Court in the case of Puran Singh alias Sampuran Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Development), Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2009 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 712, reiterated the position that the Punjab Land Revenue Act does not provide for the an appeal against 'Sanad Takseem' but an aggrieved person cannot be left without a forum to seek redress. Finally 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. The dictum in Resham Singh alias Dilbagh Singh's case (supra) was followed and the case was remanded to the Financial Commissioner.