High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/13071/2013dismissed

Baldev Singh v. Financial Commissioner Pb & ORS

2015-02-05Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon2 pages

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 13071 of 2013 Date of Decision: 5.2.2015 Baldev Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and Others ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta.

Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. V. Ram Swaroop, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 4.

Mr. Surinder Gaur, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6.

Mr. N.S.Chahal, Advocate for Mr. J.S.Brar, Advocate for respondent No.7.

Rajan Gupta, J.

Petitioner is aggrieved by order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. Operative portion whereof reads as under:- "3.

I have carefully gone through the written arguments filed by both the counsel, revision petition as well as order and record of the lower courts. In my considered view the revision petition is devoid of any merit and deserve to be dismissed. I agree with the findings of Commissioner that revenue officers are to ensure that the khal and pahi is provided in such a way that the land of the share holders is not separated into different parts or tucks. Since the case has simply been DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2015.02.05 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Civil Writ Petition No. 13071 of 2013 remanded to A.C.I. the petitioner will have full opportunity to project his case before the A.C.I. I do not see any miscarriage of justice in the present case. The revision petition carries no merits and is accordingly dismissed."

Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that watercourses and passages given during consolidation cannot be changed by the Assistant Collector while deciding the issue regarding partition. According to him, such an order would not be in consonance with the consolidation proceedings.

Counsel representing respondents, however, submit that matter has only been remitted to the Assistant Collector Grade-I for decision afresh. All the pleas of the petitioner can be considered by the said authority at the time of hearing.

I find substance in the arguments of counsel representing respondents. It is evident that Collector has merely remanded the matter to Assistant Collector Grade-I to decide the issue afresh. Needless to observe that said authority shall afford opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned before arriving at a decision. There is, thus, no ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

However, endeavour shall be made to decide the issue expeditiously.

(Rajan Gupta) Judge February 5, 2015 "DK"

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2015.02.05 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document