C.W.P No.11924 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.W.P No.11924 of 2008 Date of Decision: 15.07.2008 Khurshid and others. ....Petitioners. Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. ... J.S. Khehar, J. The petitioners before this Court, filed an application for acquiring occupancy rights in respect of the disputed land, under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the 1887 Act). The respondents before this Court, were proceeded against ex- parte by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridabad, on 27.3.1992. In other words, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridabad, sanctioned occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land in question. The respondents before this Court, moved an application before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridabad, for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 27.3.1992. The aforesaid application was allowed by the C.W.P No.11924 of 2008 2 Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridabad, on 15.4.1993. Accordingly, the ex-parte order dated 27.3.1992, sanctioning occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners, was set aside by the aforesaid order dated 15.4.1993. It is, therefore, that the application filed by the petitioners for acquiring occupancy rights regarding the disputed land, under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the 1887 Act, came up for redetermination before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridabad. At this juncture, the aforesaid application was disposed of by an order dated 8.11.1994. Relying on a decision rendered by this Court in Puran Lal Aggarwal Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 1992 PLJ 574, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridabad, arrived at the conclusion, that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the petitioners for determination of the occupancy rights. It is not a matter of dispute, that the petitioners before this Court, never impugned the order dated 8.11.1994. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the order dated 8.11.1994 attained finality. In 1999, the respondents before this Court, challenged the order dated 27.3.1992 by preferring an appeal. The Commissioner, Faridabad, by an order dated 9.5.2000 dismissed the aforesaid appeal. The respondents also filed two revision petitions. Both the aforesaid revision petitions came to be dismissed by a common order dated 5.8.2005. Despite the sequence of facts narrated hereinabove, on the basis of the ex-parte order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridabad, dated 27.3.1992, the petitioners got the mutation entries recorded in the revenue record. It is, therefore, that the petitioners came to be described as occupancy tenants in respect of the land in question in the revenue record. The respondents came to know about the mutation made in the C.W.P No.11924 of 2008 3 revenue record on the basis of the order dated 27.3.1992 in 1999. It is, therefore, that the respondents challenged the same by asserting, that the aforesaid mutation had been made on the basis of the order dated 27.3.1992, which had already been set aside by a subsequent order dated 15.4.1993. The matter eventually came up before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as respondents. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, set aside the mutation entries based on the order of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridabad, dated 27.3.1992 by arriving at the conclusion, that the order dated 27.3.1992 had already been set aside by the order dated 15.4.1993. It is the instant order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated 10.4.2008, is subject matter of challenge at the hands of the petitioners. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners could not deny, that the mutation entries had been made on the basis of the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridabad, dated 27.3.1992. He also could not deny, that the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridabad, dated 27.3.1992 had subsequently been set aside on 15.4.1993. It is, therefore, apparent that the mutation entries had been made on the basis of an order which had already been set aside. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there is no question, whatsoever, of any infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.4.2008 (Annexure P-1). There is yet another reason for arriving at the same conclusion, namely, the application filed by the petitioners under sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the 1887 Act, seeking occupancy rights in respect of the land in question, was finally disposed of by an order dated 8.11.1994, wherein the Assistant Collector, Ist C.W.P No.11924 of 2008 4 Grade, Faridabad, arrived at the conclusion that he had no jurisdiction to determine the issue of occupancy rights. The aforesaid order attained finality between the parties, inasmuch as, the petitioners never challenged or contested the order dated 8.11.1994. By the aforesaid order, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridabad, had clearly recorded his conclusion, that he has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issue canvassed by the petitioners. Therefore also, there was no justification for the petitioners to have been allowed mutation, depicting occupancy rights in the land in question on the basis of an order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridabad. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg ) Judge. 15.07.2008 sk.