In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.17571 of 2003 ..... Date of decision:5.11.2009 Bhajan Kaur .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. R.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate for respondents No.6 and 7. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 24.7.2003 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab (respondent No.2) in a revision petition filed by respondents No.5 to 9 whereby the order dated 30.4.2002 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Divisional Commissioner Patiala (respondent No.2) has been set aside. The facts of the case are that Ram Singh, father of respondents No.5 to 9 and father-in-law of petitioner Bhajan Kaur widow of Norang Singh was the owner of 1/6 share of agricultural land measuring 150 Bighas 11½ Biswas and two houses. Ram Singh died on 24.6.1976 leaving behind his widow Jangir Kaur and four sons, namely, Mohinder Singh, Amrik Singh, Bant Singh and Norang Singh, besides one daughter, namely, C.W.P. No.17571 of 2003 [2] Mohinder Kaur. Norang Singh and his brother Bant Singh sons of Ram Singh filed Civil Suit No.275 of 3.11.1978 for joint possession of the suit land in Village Kukar Majra, besides two houses etc. It was alleged by the plaintiffs Norang Singh and Bant Singh that they along with their father Ram Singh and brothers Mohinder Singh and Amrik Singh constituted a Joint Hindu Family with Ram Singh as `Karta' and he died on 24.6.1976 leaving behind his sons as his only legal heirs. The suit land and the house described in the heading of the plaint were the ancestral joint Hindu property of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3 in the said suit and Ram Singh deceased. Jangir Kaur widow of Ram Singh filed a separate Civil Suit No.184 of 24.7.1979 claiming possession of the land. It was alleged by her that Ram Singh had executed a Will dated 5.9.1974 bequeathing his property to her and after the death of Ram Singh she by virtue of the same became the sole owner of the estate of Ram Singh. Norang Singh son of Ram Singh died during the pendency of the suit before the trial Court and his LRs namely Bhajan Kaur, widow (petitioner) and his daughters Sarabjit Kaur, Paramjit Kaur, Harbans Kaur and Charanjit Kaur were impleaded as plaintiffs in the suit. Bant Singh another son of Ram Singh had filed Civil Suit No.207 of 4.2.1991 for permanent injunction against Jangir Kaur widow of Ram Singh, Mohinder Singh and Amrik Singh sons of Ram Singh and Bhajan Kaur widow of Norang Singh son of Ram Singh. He claimed permanent injunction restraining the said defendants from forcibly dispossessing him and from interfering in his peaceful possession of the land as detailed in the head note of the plaint. Civil Suit No.275 of 3.11.1978 filed by Norang Singh and Bant Singh sons of Ram Singh and Civil Suit No.184 of 24.7.1979 filed by Jangir Kaur were consolidated. The C.W.P. No.17571 of 2003 [3] learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.1.1984 dismissed the suit filed by Jangir Kaur and decreed the suit filed by Norang Singh and Bant Singh holding that they were entitled to 7/36 share in the estate of Ram Singh including the houses. Jangir Kaur widow of Ram Singh filed two separate appeals against the judgment and decree dated 13.1.1984 of the trial Court which were disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.1986. The appeals filed by Jangir Kaur were dismissed. However, the order of the trial Court was modified to the effect that instead of 7/36 share awarded to the plaintiff in the properties described in sub-heads ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ they were held entitled to 7/30 share each. With the said modification in the decree of the trial Court, the appeals were dismissed. The dispute in the present case relates to mutation No.9950 of Village Kukar Majra, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amloh vide order dated 14.6.2000 (Annexure-P.3) sanctioned mutation to the extent of 7/30 share in favour of Bhajan Kaur widow of Norang Singh in accordance with the order dated 4.10.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. Respondents No.5 to 9 filed an appeal in the Court of Collector Fatehgarh Sahib against Bhajan Kaur widow of Norang Singh as also Sarabjit Kaur, Paramjit Kaur, Harbans Kaur and Charanjit Kaur daughters of Norang Singh. The District Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib vide order dated 10.10.2000 (Annexure-P.5) held that the order dated 4.10.1999 of the Additional District Judge Fatehgarh Sahib on the basis of which the order dated 14.6.2000 (Annexure-P.3) was passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amloh was not a final order. In terms of the order dated 4.10.1999 of the C.W.P. No.17571 of 2003 [4] Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib a review or appeal had been ordered to be filed for correction of the judgment and decree dated 10.10.1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib on the appeals filed by Jangir Kaur. Accordingly, it was held that the order dated 14.6.2000 (Annexure-P.3) of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amloh was not correct under the law. As such, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order dated 14.6.2000 (Annexure-P.3) of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amloh was set aside and the case remanded to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amloh with the direction to provide full opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence and decide the case on merit. Aggrieved against the order of the District Collector dated 10.10.2000 (Annexure-P.5), Bhajan Kaur widow of Norang Singh and the daughters of Norang Singh filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala which was allowed vide order dated 30.4.2000 (Annexure P2) and it was held that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amloh had rightly sanctioned mutation on the basis of the order dated 4.10.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the impugned order dated 10.10.2000 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the District Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib was set aside and the order dated 14.6.2000 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amloh was upheld. Aggrieved against the order dated 30.4.2000 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, respondents No.5 to 9 filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab, who vide order dated 24.7.2003 (Annexure-P.1) accepted the revision petition in limine and set aside the order dated 30.4.2000 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Divisional C.W.P. No.17571 of 2003 [5] Commissioner and upheld the order dated 10.10.2000 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the learned District Collector. The parties were directed to appear before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade with the direction to re-decide the whole issue afresh in the light of the discussion contained therein. The petitioner aggrieved against the said order has filed the present petition. It may be noticed that the dispute in the case primarily is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to 7/30 share or is entitled to 7/36 share in the estate of Ram Singh. In terms of the judgment and decree dated 10.10.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala it was held that Norang Singh (since deceased and represented by his LRs) and his brother Bant Singh plaintiffs as also the other brothers, namely, Mohinder Singh and Amrik Singh were entitled to 7/30 share each in the properties described in head-notes ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’. In order to seek correction of the said judgment and decree dated 10.10.1986 an application dated 15.12.1992 was filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (`C.P.C.’ – for short) for modification of the decree. It was claimed that there was a mistake in the calculation of the shares and in fact the widow and daughters of Norang Singh were entitled to 7/36 share each. The said application dated 15.12.1992 under Section 152 CPC was dismissed on 4.10.1999 with the observation that remedy available to the petitioner was to file a review application. A revision petition was filed against the order dated 4.10.1999 in this Court which was disposed of on 22.2.2000 with the observations that the petitioner may file a review application before the Court of competent jurisdiction along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and if such an application is filed the same, it was observed, shall be considered sympathetically keeping in view the facts and C.W.P. No.17571 of 2003 [6] circumstances of the case and that the petitioner was wrongly prosecuting her remedy under Section 152 CPC which was not legally maintainable. Accordingly, a review petition was filed by respondents No.5 to 9 which has been dismissed on ground of limitation by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib on 17.8.2006. Against the said decision, Civil Revision Nos.5027 and 5028 of 2006 have been filed in this Court which are listed for hearing on 25.11.2009. Therefore, as of now it is the judgment and decree dated 10.10.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala which is final between the parties. However, this is subject to the decision in Civil Revision Nos.5027 and 5028 of 2006 which are with respect to the share of Bhajan Kaur and her daughters Sarabjit Kaur, Paramjit Kaur, Harbans Kaur and Charanjit Kaur. In case the share is modified the mutation would have to be sanctioned accordingly. Mr. R.S. Mittal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has, however, contended that the order dated 24.7.2003 (Annexure-P.1) is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the petitioners were not heard before the passing of the order dated 24.7.2003 (Annexure-P.1) by the learned Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab, Chandigarh. It is submitted that in terms of Section 16 (1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (`Act' – for short), the Financial Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue Officer subordinate to him. In terms of Section 16 (4) of the Act, the Financial Commissioner may, in any case, call for by himself under sub- section (1) and pass such order as he may thinks fit. In terms of the proviso, however, the Financial Commissioner shall not under the said section pass an order reversing or modifying any proceeding or order of the subordinate C.W.P. No.17571 of 2003 [7] Revenue Officer and affecting any question of right between private persons without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, it is submitted that the order is without jurisdiction. Learned senior counsel in support of his contentions cites Mukhtiar Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1970 PLR 697 (DB) (P&H), Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1471 and Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another, AIR 1978 SC 597. In this regard, it may be noticed that the principles of right of hearing admittedly are an integral part and facet of the principles of natural justice. The compliance with the principles of natural justice has been observed in Smt. Maneka Gandhi’s case (supra) to be a great humanizing principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action. The inquiry must, always be: does fairness in action demand that an opportunity to be heard should be given to the person affected? It is beyond doubt and must be taken to be well settled that the doctrine of natural justice is applicable and a person before an order is to affect his right is passed should be heard. However, non-compliance with the principles of natural justice in the absence of prejudice would not automatically entitle the petitioner to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and over the years there has been some relaxation and softening of the rigours of rule of natural justice. In Aligarh Muslim University and others v. Mansoor Ali Khan, (2000) 7 SCC 529 a reference was made to the case of Ridge v. Baldwin, 1964 Appeal Cases 40. It was held in the said case that breach of principles of natural justice was itself treated as a prejudice and no other “de facto” prejudice needed to be proved. C.W.P. No.17571 of 2003 [8] However, since then the rigour of the rule has been relaxed not only in England but in India, therefore, the principle that in addition to the breach of natural justice, prejudice must also be proved has been developed by the Supreme Court in several cases and since the case of K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India, (1984) 1 SCC 43, the Supreme Court has consistently applied the principles of natural justice in civil cases. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that for any or every violation of a facet of natural justice or a rule incorporated in such facet, the order passed is altogether void and is to be set aside without further inquiry. The approach and test to be adopted is; whether there has been any prejudice to the petitioner who has approached the Court. It is to be ascertained whether the violation of the principles of natural justice has resulted in any prejudice and if it is found that the rights of the petitioner are materially affected which has resulted in prejudice, appropriate remedial orders are liable to be passed to remedy the prejudice which may include even setting aside the impugned order. However, if no prejudice is shown to have been resulted therefrom, it is obvious that no interference is called for. In the present case as has already been noticed the order on the basis of which the order dated 24.7.2003 (Annexure-P.1) was passed by the Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab has not resulted in any prejudice as the matter had merely been remanded to decide the issue afresh. It may be noticed that there is a decree of the Civil Court which was required to be given effect to. The Revenue Courts are always bound to follow the order of the Civil Court and give effect to the same in the revenue records, changes in the revenue record are to be effected in accordance with the decision of the Civil Court. Therefore, it is not a case C.W.P. No.17571 of 2003 [9] where the order is to be nullified only on the ground that the petitioners were not heard as it is primarily what the civil Court has already decided that has to be given effect. In the circumstances, the cases of Mukhtiar Singh v. The State of Punjab (supra), Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat (supra) and Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (supra) referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, the right of hearing was liable to be given and should have been given to the petitioner. However, its absence has not resulted in prejudice particularly when the mutations are to be sanctioned on the basis of Civil Court decree. As such, whatever is the Civil Court decree, that is, the decree dated 10.10.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala that has to be adopted, followed and given effect to. However, in case the same is modified in Civil Revision Nos.5027 and 5028 of 2006 pending in this Court which is primarily qua the entitlement of shares, the necessary consequences are to follow. In the circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to the revenue authorities to enter and sanction mutation in terms of the Civil Court decree dated 10.10.1986. In case the said Civil Court decree is modified and the shares are also modified the necessary consequences that flow from the same shall be duly incorporated and entered in the revenue record. The exercise shall be carried out by the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amloh accordingly and after hearing the parties shall give effect to the Civil Court decree dated 10.10.1986 subject to modification, if any, of the same. C.W.P. No.17571 of 2003 [10] The parties shall bear their own costs. November 5, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes