Ajmer Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises oat of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 49 of 4983 dated May 10, 1989. The petitioner, his father and, brother settled on the disputed land, which was situated in the village Malanwala, in the year 1970-71. They built up kothas on the land and had been residing there. They filed three separate applications for the transfer of land in their possession in their favour. The applications were rejected by the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) as they came into possession of the land in Rabi 1973, and, therefore, they are not entitled to have the transfer offend in their name. The petitioner, his father and brother filed three separate appeals against the orders of the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) before the Sales Commissioner, Punjab, who allowed the appeals. The private respondents who are allottees of the land carried the matter in revision to the Sales Commissioner, Zira, who allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar (Sales) for fresh decision. After remand the Tehsildar (Sales) found that the land was already allotted to others under the provisions of Package Deals Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976, and directed the petitioner, his father and brother to have the allotment orders set aside. Thereafter, they preferred the appeals before the Sales Commissioner who dismissed the appeals. On further appeal before the Chief Sales Commissioner, Ferozepore, the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar (Sales). Against the Chief Sales Commissioner, remanding the matter, the allottees, namely Bachan Kaur and respondents Nos. 3 to 8 filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Ferozepur. The Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur, exercising the powers u/s 33 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954, read with Section 15 of the Punjab Package Deals Properties (Disposal) Act allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the Chief Sales Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed the writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment.

The only point raised by the learned counsel before us in this appeal is that the Additional Commissioner had no power to decide the matter. According to the learned counsel, under the powers u/s 15 of the Punjab Package Deals Properties (Disposal) Act, it is only the State Government or the Commissioner who can interfere with the orders of the Chief Sales Commissioner and that the Additional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur, is without jurisdiction and it is accordingly liable to be set aside. In support of this proposition, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others, . There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that an order passed by the Court/Tribunal having no jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon. The only controversy is whether the Additional Commissioner has jurisdiction to pass the order impugned in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge rejected this contention of the learned counsel on the ground that the same was not raised before the Additional Commissioner. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner includes the Additional Commissioner also. Section 2(1) of the Punjab Package Deals Properties (Disposal) Act reads as follows :-

"Commissioner means - the Commissioners of a Division."

The very definition of Commissioner postulates that there can be more than one Commissioner in a Division. The Senior Commissioner will ordinarily be designated as Commissioner and the other Commissioners are designated as Additional Commissioners. Therefore, a person who has been appointed as Commissioner of a Division, whether called as a Commissioner or an Additional Commissioner, has jurisdiction to decide the revision petitions u/s 15 of the said Act. In this view of the matter we do not see any force in the contention of the learned counsel. No other point has been urged before us.

The result is, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.