IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 4149 of 1998 Date of Decision: December 21, 2011 Isab (dead) through LRs. …Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. Paramjeet Singh, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 04.02.1998 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, and for declaration to the effect that the petitioner-Isab (since deceased) is lessee over the suit land for the remaining period in view of written compromise dated 12.11.1992 (Annexure P/2). Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 – Smt. Jaituni (since deceased) executed a perpetual lease deed for 99 years on 24.03.1975 in favour of the petitioner fixing Rs.100/- as the lease money payable annually. On the basis of lease deed, the petitioner has been in continuous possession of the land measuring 25 kanals 1 marla consisting of Rectangle No. 3//15(5- CWP No. 4149 of 1998 9), 16 (7-3), 25 (7-3), Rectangle No. 6//5/1 (4-11) and Rectangle No. 49(0-15), situated in the revenue estate of Village Bhuriyaki, Tehsil Ferozepur Zhrika, Gurgaon. Respondent No.3 – Nimal filed a suit for declaration against Jaituni claiming ownership of half share in the land in dispute, which was decreed on 23.02.1991 (Annexure P/1). The petitioner has averred that the said decree is fraudulent, not bona fide. It is the result of collusion between Smt. Jaituni and respondent No.3 – Nimal. There is no pre-existing right on the basis of which, respondent No.3 can claim owernship of property from Smt. Jaituni. It is pertinent to note here that Smt. Jaituni had filed a civil suit challenging decree dated 23.02.1991 on the ground of fraud, but that suit was dismissed in default. Another important fact is that on 16.01.1991 Smt. Jaituni filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ferozepur Zhirka, which was decreed on 21.02.1992 against the petitioner for non-payment of lease money for a period from 1987 to 1990 totalling Rs.300/-. Against that, the petitioner filed appeal before the Collector, which was also dismissed on 10.08.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition against the orders of Assistant Collector Ist Grade and the Collector before the Commissioner, Gurgaon. During the pendency of the revision petition, petitioner also entered into a compromise dated 12.11.1992 (Annexure P/2) with Jaituni. Smt. Jaituni accepted Rs.10,000/- from the petitioner as lease money for the period from Kharif 1987 till the lease period and prayed for setting aside the orders of the Assistant Collector First Grade and the Collector. On the same date i.e. 12.11.1992, 2 CWP No. 4149 of 1998 the Commissioner recommended the revision petition to the Financial Commissioner for its acceptance in view of the compromise dated 12.11.1992 (Annexure P/2). During the pendency of the revision petition, respondent No.3 – Nimal moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and respondent No.3 also filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner and produced the Civil Court decree dated 23.02.1991. The Financial Commissioner referred back the matter to the Commissioner vide order dated 25.03.1996 (Annexure P/4). The Commissioner again forwarded the reference to the Financial Commissioner on 06.03.1997 (Annexure P/5). The Financial Commissioner considered the reference and dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 04.02.1998 (Annexure P/6). Hence, this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Admitted facts are to the effect that Smt. Jaituni had executed a lease deed in favour of the petitioner on 24.03.1975 for 99 years. Respondent No.3 filed a suit against Smt. Jaituni claiming half share in the land in question measuring 25 kanals 1 marla. The said suit was decreed on 23.02.1991 (Annexure P/1). It is also admitted that Smt. Jaituni filed a civil suit challenging decree dated 23.02.1991 on the ground of fraud. That too stands dismissed in default. The parties are not aware of the status of the suit thereafter. Admittedly, vide decree dated 23.02.1991, respondent no.3 had become owner of the half share of the land leased to the petitioner i.e. 12 kanals 12 marlas. It is a settled principle that lessee steps into the shoes of lessor. So, the lease 3 CWP No. 4149 of 1998 can at the most be to the extent of half share of Jaituni after decree. It is also admitted fact that the ejectment order has been passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade vide order dated 21.02.1992 and the appeal was dismissed on 10.08.1992. Thereafter, compromise dated 12.11.1992 (Annexure P/2) had been effected. On this date, Smt. Jaituni was having right qua the land measuring 12 kanals 12 marlas i.e half share in the property leased to the petitioner. It is also admitted that the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, had remanded the case to the Commissioner on 25.03.1996 (Annexure P/4) to specify what is the effect of collusive decree dated 23.02.1991 passed by the Civil Court which stands sustained and what is the value of the compromise between Smt. Jaituni and the petitioner. Thereafter, the Commissioner decided the matter afresh after hearing the parties and recorded a finding that Smt. Jaituni had no right to enter into the compromise on 12.11.1992 of the entire land as she was owner only to the extent of half share in the land as per Civil Court decree dated 23.02.1991. The Commissioner had held that compromise in regard to the remaining land is valid. The operative part of order dated 06.03.1997 passed by the Commissioner is as under:- “I have heard the learned counsels of both the sides and have perused the relevant record on file. This case was specified remanded by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana to take into consideration the fate of the appeal against the alleged decree dated 23.2.1991 and then apprise him to the facts. Now since the decree dated 23.02.1991 has become final between the parties and Smt. Jaituni has died, in view of the appeal having been dismissed in default on 21.10.1994. It becomes clear 4 CWP No. 4149 of 1998 that Smt. Jaituni had no right to enter into a compromise on 12.11.1992 regarding the land over which she had no claim. Shri Nimal having become the owner vide the alleged decree dated 23.2.1991 relating to the land measuring 12 kanal 12 marla. As regards the claim over the remaining land in dispute the validity of the compromise would stand.” The above findings were sent to the Financial Commissioner in pursuance to the direction in the remand order of the Financial Commissioner dated 25.03.1996. It would be appropriate to mention here that in pursuance of remand order, a fresh reference was sent on 06.03.1997 (Annexure P/5). By that time the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 stood amended by Haryana Act No.12 of 1996. Section 2 of the Amendment Act, amending Section 16 of the Act is reproduced as under:- “2. Amendment of section 16 of Punjab Act 17 of 1887 – For sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the following sub- sections shall be substituted, namely:- “(3) If in any case in which a Collector has called for a record and he is of the opinion that the proceedings taken or order made should be modified or reversed, he shall report, the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Commissioner whose decision shall be final. (4) The Financial Commissioner under sub-section (1), or Commissioner under sub-section (2), in any case called for by himself, may pass such orders as he thinks fit: 5 CWP No. 4149 of 1998 Provided that he shall not under this section pass an order reversing or modifying any proceeding or order of a subordinate Revenue-officer and affecting any question of right between private persons without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard: Provided further that the revisional cases pending before the commencement of the Punjab Land Revenue (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1996, shall be decided by the Financial Commissioner as heretofore.” The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the admitted facts. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Financial Commissioner passed the order without hearing. This contention of the petitioner is devoid of merit. The reading of the above said provision makes it clear that on the date of making reference all the powers have vested in the Commissioner to decide the revision. The finding has already been recorded by the Commissioner holding that the compromise is valid only to the extent of remaining land excluding the land as mentioned in the decree i.e. 12 kanals 12 marlas. The Commissioner recorded categorical finding, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the amended provisions referred to above, Commissioner’s order was final as the powers had been conferred on the Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner. The Commissioner sent reference to the Financial Commissioner in pursuance of the direction in the remand order and direction was given to the parties to appear before the Financial Commissioner. But none appeared before the Financial 6 CWP No. 4149 of 1998 Commissioner on behalf of the petitioner or legal representatives of Smt. Jaituni and the Financial Commissioner accepted the revised recommendation dated 06.03.1997 of the Commissioner and dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner. Since the finding has been recorded by the Commissioner, after hearing the parties and he was otherwise not obliged to send a reference to the Financial Commissioner in view of the amended provisions, the Financial Commissioner has only accepted the recommendations of the Commissioner, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. In spite of direction by the Commissioner to appear before the Financial Commissioner, the petitioner chose not to appear. Otherwise also, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show to this Court, how the orders of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are perverse. In view of the above, writ petition is devoid of merit, hence fails. Dismissed. No order as to costs. December 21, 2011 (Paramjeet Singh) vkd Judge 7