Mehar Singh & ANR v. State Of Punjab & ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision.13.02.2017 Mehar Singh and another .......Petitioners Vs State of Punjab and others ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Naiya Gill, Advocate for the caveator-respondent Nos.5 and 6.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL -.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) Notice of motion.

Ms. Naiya Gill, Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

The contention of the counsel Mr. Vishal Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the Financial Commissioner has committed illegality and perversity in dismissing the revision petition filed against the order dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P-7) and 15.02.2008 (Annexure P-3).

He submits that the order of the Assistant Collector Grade-I dated 15.02.2008 (Annexure P-3) was challenged by the petitioners before the Collector, as the ex parte proceedings were initiated. The Collector remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector to decide the same afresh. However, the aforementioned order was assailed by the respondents before the Commissioner by filing appeal which was allowed and the order of the Commissioner was assailed in the revision petition before the

-2Financial Commissioner who dismissed the revision petition. He further submits that the application for partition of khewat Nos.96 and 97 is not maintainable and in support of his contention, relies upon the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Kulwant Singh and others Vs. The Assistant Collector IInd Gradce Nathusari Chopta and others 2002(3) RCR (Civil 207.

During the course of hearing, he has drawn attention of this Court to the prayer indicating the factum of status of land in possession of the contesting respondents before the mode of partition and after the mode of partition at page 50-A and 50-B to contend that the land of superior quality has been given to the respondents and petitioners have been denied of the same, thus, this fact was required to be probed/pondered upon by the Financial Commissioner. The petitioner would be satisfied in case the nature of the land is equally divided i.e. superior quality. Ms. Naiya Gill, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that she does not accept the site plans and press for the mode of partition but in view of the stand taken by Mr.

Vishal Gupta viz-a-viz the maintainability of the petition, does not dispute the same in case the matter is remitted back/revisited by the Financial Commissioner. Keeping in view the aforementioned, the order of Financial Commissioner dated 7.9.2016 (Annexure P-9) is set aside and the mater is remitted back to the Financial Commissioner to decide the question of partition of superior and inferior quality of land taking into consideration all the pleas raised in the present writ petition and in the grounds of revision petition.

-3speaking order. Let this exercise be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms. The parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 02.03.2017.

In the meantime, there shall be status quo qua possession till the adjudication of the ROR.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE February 13, 2017 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No