Financial Commissioner Exceeded Jurisdiction, Orders Independent Reassessment: High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has remanded a contentious land mutation case back to the Commissioner of Patiala Division for a fresh decision, nullifying the Financial Commissioner's previous order. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj emphasized the need for a thorough reconsideration of the dispute while clarifying jurisdictional overreach by the Financial Commissioner. The case revolves around the alleged fraudulent mutation of land, with the petitioners seeking to overturn multiple orders that upheld the disputed mutation.

Petitioners Ajaib Singh and another purchased 120 kanals and 17 marlas of land from Chhota Singh in 1963, with the transaction formalized through Mutation No.1835. However, a subsequent mutation, No.4072, was sanctioned in 2006, allegedly without the petitioners' consent, leading to a protracted legal battle. The petitioners claimed fraud by the respondents in collusion with revenue officials, arguing that the mutation sheet lacked their signatures but included those of the respondents.

The petitioners filed an appeal against the 2006 mutation in 2010, which the Sub Divisional Magistrate dismissed in 2011 as time-barred. The Deputy Commissioner ordered a review in 2013, which remained unchallenged but unacted upon, prompting further appeals and reviews. The Assistant Collector confirmed the original mutation in 2015, leading to another appeal dismissal in 2017. The petitioners' subsequent revision petition was initially allowed but later set aside by the Financial Commissioner, leading to the current proceedings.

The High Court's judgment focused on the procedural lapses and jurisdictional errors in handling the mutation dispute. Justice Bhardwaj noted that the Financial Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction by directing specific outcomes in the review process, which should be independently reassessed by the Commissioner.

Justice Bhardwaj remarked, "The material dispute raised by both sides had not been properly dealt by the Commissioner and thus requires a fresh decision on reconsideration of the contentions raised by both sides." The court underscored the need for an unbiased and thorough review in accordance with Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.

This decision mandates the Commissioner, Patiala Division, to conduct a fresh review of the disputed mutation, ensuring adherence to legal protocols and unbiased consideration of all arguments. The judgment highlights the judiciary's commitment to procedural fairness and jurisdictional integrity, setting a significant precedent for handling similar land disputes.

Date of Decision: 03.05.2024