2021 S C M R 391
Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)---
----S. 172(2)(xvi)--- Proceedings before Revenue Officers/Revenue Courts---Nature---Deputy District Officer (Revenue) cancelling a sale mutation carried out in jalsa-e-aam in the presence of witnesses on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation---Legality---Proceedings before the Revenue Officer or before the Revenue Courts were summary in nature and, therefore, complicated questions of law and disputed question of fact were not to be adjudicated in the hierarchy---Determination of complicated questions of law and disputed questions of fact fell within the sole domain of the civil Court---Plea that a mutation entry was procured through fraud, could not have been decided in proceedings which were summary in nature as such controversy required adjudication by allowing the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims---Section 172 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 only empowered the Revenue authorities to exercise administrative powers; the raison d'etre for the same was that the proceedings conducted by a Revenue Officer or a Revenue Court were summary in nature; they possessed a limited scope of enquiry and did not possess the characteristics of a civil suit that necessitated framing of the issues or recording evidence of the parties, as such matters fell within the sole domain of the civil courts---Besides, S. 172(2)(xvi) of the 1967 Act left the adjudication of plea of fraud to the competence of the civil courts---Deputy District Officer (Revenue) ['DDO(R)'] transgressed his limits in the present case by declaring the subject mutation as having been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation---Appeal was allowed.
0 Comments