Civil Writ Petition No.5928 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5928 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 08, 2011 Smt. Atto ...Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. BD Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the State. Mr. M.K. Bhatnagar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 & 5. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner filed an application for partition of land, which was allowed by the Assistant Collector on 29.10.1999. Possession of land measuring 2 kanals 9 marlas was handed over to the petitioner on 15.2.2000. One of the co-sharer named Gurdas Kaur challenged this order before the Collector. On 22.8.2001, the Collector had adjourned the appeal filed by Gurdas Kaur(co-sharer) sine-die to await the decision of the case of mutation, which was pending as claimed on the basis of inheritance by Gurdas Kaur. Respondent Nos.4 & 5 claiming themselves to be legal heirs of Gurdas Kaur moved an application for restoration of the Civil Writ Petition No.5928 of 2010 -2- proceedings on 6.10.2004 and for hearing of the appeal, which was earlier adjourned sine die. The petitioner appeared and contested the said application. The application was, accordingly, dismissed. Soon thereafter, in the month of November, respondent Nos.4 & 5 again moved another application before the Collector for calling the records of partition proceedings and for stay of the same. Without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the Collector allowed the application and stayed the proceedings. Alleging that this would amount to review of the earlier order and that the same was passed without hearing the petitioner, she has approached this Court against the said order. The facts as stated are not serious in dispute. Once the appeal earlier was adjourned sine-die and the application to recall the order and hearing of the appeal was dismissed, the contrary order could have been passed, if otherwise legally permissible only after hearing both the sides. The principle of natural justice apparently has been violated by the Collector by passing the impugned order, which in fact is nothing short of the review of the earlier order. Without going into the merits, whether the Collector had any jurisdiction or authority to pass such an order, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Collector for re-deciding the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Collector would be at liberty to pass any order in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. August 08, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE