Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya quashed the order dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh, in a revision petition filed under Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954. The Court held that the impugned order was based on findings that had merged with previous appellate orders and had, therefore, lost relevance. It directed that the decision of the District Collector, Una dated 30.05.2008, which appointed Sanjay Kumar as Lambardar, and which had been affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, be restored. The Court held that the Financial Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction by interfering with settled appellate findings and substituting them with earlier, overruled views.

Following the death of Joginder Singh, Lambardar of village Jankaur in Tehsil and District Una, on 27.10.2010, the process of appointing a successor commenced. Among several applicants, Sanjay Kumar and Kamal Singh applied for the post. The District Collector, Una initially appointed Kamal Singh on 29.01.2004. Sanjay Kumar appealed the decision under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Two-Decade-Old Criminal Case Over Alleged Forged Will | Says Civil Dispute Was Misused to Launch Criminal Proceedings

The Divisional Commissioner, Kangra allowed the appeal on 22.11.2006 and remanded the matter to the District Collector, Una for reconsideration of both candidates’ eligibility based on Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. The remand order became final as it was not challenged further.

Pursuant to this direction, the District Collector, Una on 30.05.2008 appointed Sanjay Kumar as Lambardar. Kamal Singh appealed this decision, and though his appeal was initially allowed, the High Court in CMPMO No. 206 of 2011 set aside that order and directed the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi to adjudicate.

In compliance, the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi dismissed Kamal Singh’s appeal on 12.12.2011 and affirmed Sanjay Kumar's appointment. Kamal Singh then filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), who by order dated 11.12.2012, reversed all previous decisions and reinstated Kamal Singh's 2004 appointment.

Sanjay Kumar filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging this decision.

The Court noted that its judicial review was limited to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the decisions. It stated "The power of judicial review is a limited jurisdiction. What can be looked into by this Court is the decision-making process and not the merit of the decision."

The Court examined the scope of revisional powers under Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act and stated "Though, the revisional power of Financial Commissioner under the Act appears to be unbridled... however... the revisional power... has to prescribe to the basic tenets of revisional power under the general law, which encompasses satisfaction... as to legality and propriety."

It held that the Financial Commissioner had interfered with findings that had attained finality and merged into later orders. It recorded "Once, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra... had attained finality, the order of District Collector, Una dated 29.01.2004 had lost relevance."

It also found fault in the reliance placed by the Financial Commissioner on issues already resolved, such as Kamal Singh's hereditary claim and Sanjay Kumar's residency. The Court quoted that the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra had held "Kamal Singh was so distantly related to deceased Lambardar Joginder Singh that his hereditary claim was of no consequence."

The Financial Commissioner had also treated Sanjay Kumar's acquisition of property under a will as a violation of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The High Court dismissed this view, stating "Such an observation appears to be without any material on record."

On the issue of preference for Lambardar appointment, the Court cited Harsharan Singh vs. Financial Commissioner Appeal, observing "The choice exercised by the Collector does not appear to be suffering from any perversity, which could have been interfered with."

It reiterated that appellate or revisional authorities cannot substitute their opinion unless the subordinate authority's order is found perverse or illegal. The Court observed "The proposition of law that the choice of the Collector is not to be interfered with is fairly well settled."

Also Read: P&H High Court: Criminal Case Unrelated to Service Can’t Justify Withholding Gratuity Under PCS Rules

The Court set aside the impugned order of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) dated 11.12.2012. It stated "In result, the petition is allowed. Order dated 11.12.2012, passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in Case No.10 of 2012 is quashed and set aside."

It concluded by recording the closure of the writ petition and any pending applications, stating "Petition is accordingly disposed of along with pending application(s), if any."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Pratush Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent-State; Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Raj Singh and Ms. Ritu Singh, Advocate

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar v. State of H.P. & others

Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:24277

Case Number: CWP No. 578 of 2013

Bench: Justice Satyen Vaidya