The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, filed for issuance of writ of certiorari or the nature thereof by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2019, in Revision Petition No.117 of 2019, passed by the Financial commissioner, and upholding the order dated 20.01.2017, passed by District Collector. The Court observed that it is for the aggrieved party to assail the order and the authority which passes the order cannot be said to be an aggrieved party.Some proceedings were initiated against the respondents under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act on the basis of a complaint. The same was decided against the respondents by the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner in terms of an order dated 20.01.2017. Feeling aggrieved by the order, an Appeal was filed by the respondents before the Appellate Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner. This Appeal was allowed in favour of the respondents by the learned Divisional Commissioner, who set aside the order passed by the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner. This appellate order was further assailed by way of a Revision by the State before the learned Financial Commissioner. Vide order dated 16.12.2019, the learned Financial Commissioner upheld the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner and dismissed the Revision petition. Feeling aggrieved, the state has filed this writ petition.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the orders passed by both the learned Divisional Commissioner as well as the learned Financial Commissioner are not sustainable in the eyes of the law as both erred in not appreciating that as the respondents were not agriculturists, they could not have purchased agricultural land in Himachal. He argued that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Collector, which stood set aside.The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that under the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the Deputy Commissioner is a Quasi-Judicial Authority as he exercises the powers of Collector in terms of the Act. He argued that the present writ petition is not maintainable through the District Collector because a quasi-judicial authority cannot assail the subsequent adjudication in terms whereof, its order has been interfered with by the superior authority.
The Court noted that it fails to understand as to how the petition could have been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh through the District Collector, who happened to be the statutory quasi-judicial authority, who had adjudicated in the matter at the first instance as a judge.The Court observed that, unlike a complainant, a quasi-judicial authority has to act impartially and take a call on the lis which is before it, and after the case stands decided by it becomes functus officio. It neither has the power to file an appeal nor review or revision etc., against its order. It is for the aggrieved party to assail the order and the authority which passes the order cannot be said to be an aggrieved party. A quasi-judicial authority cannot assail the subsequent adjudication in terms whereof, its order has been interfered with by the superior authorities.The Himachal Pradesh High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the orders impugned do not call for any interference in exercise of the power of judicial review.
TAGS: Himachal Pradesh High Court Writ Petition Land Dispute Quashing Orders
