IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10439 of 2009 Date of decision : 24.9.2009 Balbir Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab etc. ….. Respondents Present: Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. During the course of hearing it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sanad Takseem (Annexure P10) has been issued. Against an order sanctioning the Sanad Takseem, the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 do not provide for any appeal. A finality is attached to the Sanad Takseem. However, the petitioners are not without remedy and can assail the legality of Sanad Takseem by invoking the jurisdiction of the learned Financial Commissioner under Section 16 (1) of the said Punjab Land Revenue Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Resham Singh @ Dilbagh Singh v. Assistant Collector Ist Grade-cum-Tehsildar, Phillaur and Others CWP No. 19985 of 2005 decided on 15.5.2007 has held that the powers conferred by Section 16(1) of the Act, would take within their ambit a quasi-judicial appraisal of the legality of the Sanad Takseem . An aggrieved person may, in exceptional circumstances, invoke the Financial Commissioner’s jurisdiction, under Section 16 (1) of the Act. Section 16 (1) of the Act confers suo motu revisional powers upon the Financial CWP No. 10439 of 2009 [2] Commissioner to call for and examine the legality of any proceeding, pending before or decided by a revenue officer. It was observed that the petitioner in the first instance should have approached the Court of Financial Commissioner by way of revision. The dictum of the Division Bench in Resham Singh @ Dilbagh Singh’s case (Supra) was followed by this Court in the case of Puran Singh @ Sampuran Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Development), Punjab Chandigarh and Others, 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 712. It was held in the said case that it was true that the Act does not provide for an appeal against Sanad Takseem but an aggrieved person cannot be left without a forum to seek redress. It was observed further that finality attached to a Sanad Takseem can always be impugned by invoking the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or suo motu powers conferred upon the Financial Commissioner. The case was remanded back to Financial Commissioner for consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be allowed to withdraw the writ petition at this stage with liberty to avail his remedy of approach the learned Financial Commissioner under Section 16(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 in the first instance. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 24, 2009 amit