C.W.P.No.12094 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.12094 of 2009 Date of Decision 3.12.2009 Digvijay Singh ........ Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner Haryana and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sukant Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has approached this court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the orders dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and dated 22.6.2009 (Annexure P-11), whereby the order Annexure P-7, was upheld by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Karnal, vide order dated 31.7.2007, had directed the Tehsildar, Nilokheri, to have proclamation done in a proper manner before appointing Lambardar for village Jhanjhri, Tehsil Nilokheri. The said order was impugned by respondent No.5 before the Collector, Karnal, who dismissed the appeal vide order dated C.W.P.No.12094 of 2009 -2- 29.10.2007, upholding the order passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Karnal. On revision petition filed by respondent No.5 to the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, the orders dated 31.7.2007, passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade and dated 29.10.2007, passed by the Collector, Karnal, were set aside without giving any notice to the petitioner vide order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure P-7). The same has been affirmed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide order dated 22.6.2009 (Annexure P-11). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the the Commissioner dated 28.12.2007 which has been affirmed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 22.6.2009, is in violation of Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, (for short “ the Act”) and the Commissioner could not pass an order reversing or modifying any proceeding or order of a subordinate Revenue-Officer and affecting any question of right between private persons without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard. Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for respondent No.5, has very fairly conceded that no notice as required by Section 16 of the Act, was issued by the Commissioner and, therefore, the orders dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure P-7), passed by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and dated 22.6.2009, passed by the Financial Commissioner (AnnexureP-11), impugned herein cannot be sustained. He however, states that the matter may be remanded back to the Commissioner, Haryana to decide the same afresh after hearing both the parties. In view of the above, orders Annexures P-7 and P-11, impugned herein are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, Haryana, to decide the same afresh after hearing both the parties. C.W.P.No.12094 of 2009 -3- Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Commissioner, Haryana, for hearing on 29.1.2010. December 3, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) rishu JUDGE