HP Land Revenue Act | Financial Commissioner Can't Interfere With Order Set Aside By District Collector Without Declaring It Illegal: High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an order passed by the Financial Commissioner, holding that he had exceeded his jurisdiction by relying on irrelevant and non-existent material and by interfering with the Collector's decision without declaring any legal infirmity or perversity.

Setting aside the decision of the Financial Commissioner, Justice Satyen Vaidya held that “The Financial Commissioner while passing the impugned order has exceeded his jurisdiction by basing his opinion on irrelevant and non-existent material and also by interfering with the order of District Collector without declaring it to be illegal or perverse.”

The petitioner had applied for the post of Land Revenue Collector of village Jankaur, District Una, after the death of the already serving Revenue Collector. However, another candidate, Kamal Singh, was appointed for the post by the District Collector in 2004.

The petitioner challenged the appointment by filing an appeal under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra. The appeal was allowed in 2006, and the matter was remanded to the District Collector for reconsideration.

After reconsideration, the petitioner was given the post in 2008, and his appointment was challenged by Kamal Singh before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, who allowed the appeal. However, the decision of Divisional Commissioner, Kangra was set aside by the High Court and the matter was directed to be heard and decided by Divisional Commissioner, Mandi.

Thereafter in 2011, the Divisional Commissioner upheld the appointment of the petitioner. Kamal Singh then challenged the order before the Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh by filing Revision Petition under Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954.

In 2012, the Financial Commissioner allowed the Revision petition and reinstated the order passed by the District Collector in 2004 which had appointed Kamal Singh.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition.

Examining the Scope of revisional powers of the Financial Commissioner, the Court remarked that, according to Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, the Financial Commissioner has the authority to call for records of any case and pass orders.

However, the Court noted that such power has to be prescribed to the basic tenets of revisional power under the general law, which encompasses satisfaction of the Revisional Authority as to the legality and propriety of the order of the subordinate authority. The revisional power is meant to be used to subserve the interest of justice by eliminating the element of illegality or perversity in the orders of subordinate authorities.

The Court observed that the Financial Commissioner did not justify interference with the 2008 order, which appointed the petitioner. Instead of evaluating the 2008 order, the Financial Commissioner relied on an already set aside order of 2004 passed by the District Collector, which was already set aside and had attained finality.

The Court remarked that once the 2004 order of the District Collector was set aside and was not challenged further, it could not be relied upon. Thus, the Court allowed the petition and held that the Financial Commissioner had based his decision on irrelevant and non-existent material.

Case Name: Sanjay Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Others.

Case No.: CWP No.578 of 2013

Date of Decision: 25.07.2025

For the Petitioner: 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, for respondent No.5

Click Here To Read/Download Order