Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (TAXATION) PUNJAB AND ORS. versus HARBHAJAN SINGH

Decided
22 March 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 812 · 1996 INSC 429
Also cited as
  • (1996) 9 SCC 281 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both the sides.

p. 812, margin G

This appe~l relate~ to the grant of 11 · Kanals 7 marlas of Ian\! in revenue estate of Karbara in Ludhiana District. The respondent and his brother Jawahar Singh, s/o Gurdit Singh being displaced persons; his brother had applied for· transfer of 7 kanals 15 marlas. It was accordingly granted to him and it became fi~al by proceedings d~ted 'August 17, 1966. Thereafter, in the collusion with the revenue offici~ls the respondent got his name mutated in the. records .with regard to .the l~nd in the ye~r 1967 and asked for assignm~nt of the s'ame under the Di~placed.Persons (Compensation and R~habilitation) Act, 1954 (for ~h~rt, ·the ;Act'). One Mr. j.s. Quami, Seit\ement Office; gr;nted asslgiiinent to the. respolldent on Augusi 29, 1969:' Thereafter:,"when it'~as 'noticed that 'the mutation was obtained. by phiying' fraud, the self-same officer as Settlement Commissioner, by proceedings ilated i6:9.1971,. set aside the order. It came to be challenged by filing of a reVision under Se~tion 33 .of the Act:' The Financial Commissioner (Taxation)', Government of Punjab upheld the cancellation by his proceedings dated November 25, 1971.. When. the .respondent filed the writ petition, the learned sing!~ Judge by order dated January 12, 1989, dismissed the. \vrit petition. The Division Bench by judgment and order dated January 12, 1989 in LP A No. 526/82 has set aside the order on the finding that J.S: Qaumi having exeri:ised the power as Settlement Officer has no jurisdiction. to sit over the same order as appellate authority as Chief Settlement Commissioner. Therefore, the .order .is vitiated by error of law.

p. 813, margin A

The question is : whether the order passed by J.S. Qaumi as Settlement Officer could be corrected by the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) under Section 33 of the Act ? Section 33 reads as under :

p. 813, margin E

"33. The Central Government may at any time call for the record of any proceeding under this Act and· may pass such order in relation thereto as in its opinion the circumstances of the. case re4uire and as is not inconsistent with ~y of the provIS1ons

p. 813, margin F

contained in this Act or the rules made therennder."

p. 813, margin F

A reading thereof would clearly indicate that the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) as a delegate of the Centra!Government has power to revise any. order after calling for record in relation thereto· and if in his opinion the circumstances of the case require and the order passed is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder, he has got power to correct the sam.e. It is true, as rightly contend.ed by the learned counsel for the respondent, that J.S. Qaumi having granted assignment as Settlement Officer, could not sit over his order as Chief Settlement . Commissioner. This is the settled legal position and needs no reiteration. This Court in Guiab Ajwani & Ors. v. Saraswati Bai & Ors., (1977) 3 SCC 581 had laid the law. But the question is not resolved with the above finding alone. As stated earlier, the Financial Commissioner {Taxation) as a delegate of the Central Government has been invested with the power under Section 33 to revise any orders. All the authorities have held that after his brother J awhar Singh had been granted' the same assignment as granted to them, the respondent in collusion with lower level revenue officials had played fraud and obtained another assignment. The Commissioner under Section 33, therefore, has power to correct the same in his revisional jurisdiction though it was brought to his notice by way of revision by the respondent himself treating it to be a suo motu review. Under these circumstances, the High Court was not justified in quashing the orders.

pp. 813–814, margin G

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Division bench is set aside and that of the single Judge and the authorities upheld. No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 814, margin C