A quasi-judicial authority cannot assail the subsequent adjudication of its order by a superior authority, and once an order is decided by an appellate or revisional authority, the original order merges into the appellate or revisional order and becomes binding.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner-State has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(i) 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 Financial commissioner(Appeals) H.P., and upholding the order dated 20.01.2017, passed by District Collector, Solan, H.P.

(ii) That record the case from the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P., may kindly be called for the purpose of satisfying the legality or propriety of orders made therein.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that proceedings were initiated against the respondents under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act on the basis of a complaint. Same was decided against the respondents by District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Solan, H.P., in terms of order dt.20.01.2017.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the order, an Appeal was filed by the respondents before the Appellate Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division. 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, Solan, H.P., vide order dated 17.01.2019. This appellate order was further assailed by way a Revision by the State before the learned Financial Commissioner. Vide order dated 16.12.2019, learned Financial Commissioner upheld the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner and dismissed the Revision petition.

4. Feeling aggrieved, State of Himachal Pradesh has filed this writ petition through District Collector, Solan.

5. Learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the orders passed by both the learned Divisional Commissioner as well as the learned Financial Commissioner are not sustainable in the eyes of law as both erred in not appreciating that as the respondents were not agriculturist, 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. Accordingly, he prayed that the present Revision petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner as well as learned Financial Commissioner be set aside.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has argued that writ petition is not maintainable. He submitted that under the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, Deputy Commissioner is Quasi-Judicial Authority as he exercises the powers of Collector in terms of the Act. Learned Senior Counsel referred to the order passed by the District Collector Solan/Deputy Commissioner, Solan, H.P., dated 20.01.2017, in terms whereof, proceedings which were initiated against the respondents by the State of Himachal Pradesh were decided by the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner in a Quasi-Judicial capacity against the present respondents. Learned Senior Counsel further draw the attention of the Court to the subsequent orders passed i.e. the order passed by Divisional Commissioner, Shimla in Appeal No. 145 of 2017, titled Vinod Gupta and Others vs. State of H.P., which was decided by the Appellate Authority in favour of the respondent dated 17.01.2019, as also the subsequent Revisional Order passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in Revision Petition No.117 of 2019, decided on 16.12.2019, in terms whereof, the Revision Petition preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the order passed in Appeal by the Divisional Commissioner was dismissed and the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner was affirmed. As per him, Deputy Commissioner was not the complainant, but was the authority, who exercised the jurisdiction conferred upon him under the provisions of Section 118 of H.P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act in deciding a lis. Therefore, the writ petition through District Collector by the State of Himachal Pradesh is no