In an affidavit filed on July 24, the Punjab Department of Revenue, Rehabilitation and Disaster Management asserted that the existing quasi-judicial machinery, led by Financial Commissioners (Revenue), provides an exhaustive multi-tiered appellate framework. The state government opposed a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court that sought the establishment of a revenue judicial service and minimum legal qualifications for officials handling land disputes.
Punjab Government's Affidavit: Existing Framework Sufficient
The affidavit, submitted by Under Secretary Sandeep Katyal, argued that the constitution of a separate Revenue Judicial Service Cadre would not be tenable because of the robust mechanism in Punjab. Revenue officers deal with revenue work efficaciously primarily under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, and other revenue-related legislations. These Acts are 150-year-old and have withstood the test of time, with amendments made as per requirements.
The state government pointed out that the statutory framework provides an elaborate multi-tiered appellate and revisional structure to completely eliminate any risk of arbitrariness. The availability of judicial review acts as a complete check against institutional bias and legal error, rendering a separate Revenue Judicial Service completely redundant. The government sought dismissal of the PIL filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay.
PIL Petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay's Argument
Opposing the state's stance, Upadhyay argued that nearly 66 per cent of civil cases relate to land disputes, yet they are adjudicated by officers lacking formal legal education and training. This results in erroneous and inconsistent decisions, causing prolonged uncertainty over property rights, restricting land use and transfer, increasing litigation and costs, and denying effective access to justice, thereby infringing fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Upadhyay highlighted a specific case: 'A case has been pending before a Chakbandi Adhikari (Consolidation Officer) for 40 years to determine which gift deed is valid.' He also pointed out that the Allahabad High Court had dealt with the issue, but its direction has not been implemented in letter and spirit to date.
Supreme Court's Response and Next Steps
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had on April 30 issued notice to the Centre, states, and Union territories on Upadhyay's PIL. The CJI remarked, 'The point is very interesting also. But they will say it is for the Legislature.' The court asked the Union of India, Law Commission, and others to respond within four weeks.
Upadhyay, appearing in person, stressed that the issue is one of the most pressing concerns raised by litigants across districts, particularly in rural India. He submitted that adjudication of title, succession, inheritance, possession, and other property rights by public servants without formal legal education and judicial training is legally impermissible and should be supervised and monitored by the respective high court.
Broader Context: Land Dispute Adjudication in India
The PIL underscores a systemic concern: the adjudication of land rights by revenue officers without legal backgrounds. The petitioner argued that the present system causes widespread injury to citizens. With nearly two-thirds of civil cases revolving around land, the demand for a separate revenue judicial service with qualified professionals has gained traction among legal experts and litigants alike. The Supreme Court's decision on this matter could set a precedent for how land disputes are resolved across the country.
