IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1815 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 31, 2011 Ram Rattan .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab & another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 17.9.2008 (Annexure P-17) passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab. 2. Perusal of Order Annexure P-17 shows that revision petition filed by petitioner CWP No.1815 of 2009 [2] (Ram Rattan) has been dismissed. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that a report from the Local Commissioner was sought. Finding in the report favours the case of the petitioner and yet impugned order has been passed. It has been held that the petitioner has not been able to show his cultivating possession over the land. Under the circumstances, the entry in Khasra Girdawri has not been allowed to be changed under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Financial Commissioner has not taken into account relevant material at the time of adjudication. Report of the Local Commissioner is relevant for determining the cultivating possession of a party. Manifest injustice has been caused to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the impunged order is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that objections to the report of the Local Commissioner were filed. Report per-se is illegal in so much as the revenue officers of the area were not associated and the inspection was conducted in the absence of the parties. Learned counsel, however, admits that there is no order CWP No.1815 of 2009 [3] vide which it has been said that the report of the Local Commissioner is to be ignored or is illegal. 6. Learned counsel for the private respondent further contends that Assistant Collector IInd Grade visited the spot, and therefore in any case, the order is legal. However, in view of the fact that report of the Local Commissioner has not been set aside and it favours the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that let the case be remanded to the Financial Commissioner to enable him to re-adjudicate the matter after considering all the documents. 7. In view of the concession made by learned counsel for the private respondent, this petition is allowed. Order dated 17.9.2008 (Annexure P-17) is set aside. Case is remanded to Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab. 8. Financial Commissioner is requested to hear the parties again, consider all the documents available on the file and pass orders as required by law. Financial Commissioner is also requested to finally take a decision in the matter within two months of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 9. Parties are required to appear CWP No.1815 of 2009 [4] before Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, on 20.4.2011. (AJAI LAMBA) March 31, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?