Civil Writ Petition No.6578 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6578 of 1989 Date of Order: 15.09.2010 Brij Mohan ....Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Punjab, (Taxation), Chandigarh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate and Mr. Rajesh Narang, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Anu Pal, AAG, Punjab, for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). This order shall dispose of C.W.P.Nos. 6578 and 12812 of 1989 as they involve adjudication of identical points. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No.6578 of 1989. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 15.12.1987 and 29.09.1988, passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and the Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab, Chandigarh, respectively. The surplus area case of the petitioner was decided by the Collector Agrarian, Fazilka on 31.01.1977. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was accepted by the Commissioner and the case was remanded to the Collector for a fresh decision. The surplus area case was decided afresh by the Collector on 25.03.1982. One Shekhar Chand, respondent no.3, filed a complaint before the Commissioner alleging irregularities in the surplus area Civil Writ Petition No.6578 of 1989 -2- order. The Commissioner, vide order dated 15.12.1987 granted permission to the Collector to review the order dated 25.03.1982. The petitioner filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner. During the pendency of the revision, respondent no.3 filed an application for being impleaded as a party. The application was allowed on 19.09.1988. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner is illegal as respondent no.3 is not a co- sharer, a tenant or a vendee and, therefore, in absence of any right in the land could not be impleaded as a party in the revision filed by the petitioner. Counsel for the State of Punjab, however, submits that as the complaint was filed by respondent no.3, he was rightly impleaded as a party. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The Financial Commissioner cannot be faulted for passing an order impleading respondent no.3 as a party. A complaint was filed by respondent no.3 alleging serious illegalities in the surplus area order. The Commissioner took cognizance and directed the Collector to review the order dated 25.03.1982. The complainant, may not be a “person aggrieved” as understood in common parlance but has a right to be heard in the revision arising from an order passed, on his complaint. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed and the order passed by the Financial Commissioner directing respondent no.3 to be impleaded as a party is affirmed. No order as Civil Writ Petition No.6578 of 1989 -3- to costs. Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 28.10.2010, who shall decide the revision, within three months from receipt of a certified copy of this order. September 15, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE Civil Writ Petition No.6578 of 1989 -4- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12812 of 1989 Date of Order: 15.09.2010 Surinder Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate and Mr. Rajesh Narang, Advocate, for the petitioners Ms. Anu Pal, AAG, Punjab, for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). For orders, see Civil Writ Petition No.6578 of 1989 titled as Brij Mohan v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab, (Taxation), Chandigarh and others, decided on even date. September 15, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE