C.W.P No.11425 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.W.P No.11425 of 2008 Date of Decision: 07.07.2008 Suraj Bhan ....Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jora Singh. Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ... J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated 12.3.2008, whereby the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, has concurred with the order passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, dated 23.11.2005 (Annexure P-9). The operative part of the impugned order is being extracted hereunder:- “I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record in file as well as arguments of both the parties. I agree with the observation of the Commissioner that in absence of proper evidence in support of oral family partition as alleged by the petitioner, the Revenue Officer cannot be given weight to such claim unless the same is corroborated through admission of other co-sharers. The C.W.P No.11425 of 2008 2 Revenue Authority while taking decision should also keep in mind the value of the land along with the possession and the co-sharers of the joint Khewat need to be given share in land which is costly. Therefore, I do not feel persuaded to interfere with the well reasoned order dated 23.11.2005 passed by the learned Commissioner and order dated 19.5.2003 passed by the Collector. Accordingly, finding no force in petition, the same is dismissed.” Learned counsel for the petitioner does not contest the determination of the operative part of the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated 12.3.2008. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, entertained the appeal filed by the private respondents herein without examining the delay of 63 days in filing the aforesaid appeal. Havingconsidered the totality of the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view, that it would be inappropriate for us to entertain the instant writ petition in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the merits of the determination of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated 12.3.2008, are not subject matter of challenge, and as such, it is natural to conclude that the matter has been decided on its merits. Dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge. ( Jora Singh ) Judge. C.W.P No.11425 of 2008 3 07.07.2008 sk.