CWP No. 3483 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3483 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: May 16, 2011 Harsa Singh and another .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others .......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Addl. AS.G., Punjab. Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no. 3. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. Both the petitioners and respondent no. 4-Sadhu Singh are brothers and joint owners of land measuring 52 kanals 13 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1988-89, placed on record as Annexure P-1. Respondent no. 4-Sadhu Singh has died, however, since he sold his property to respondent no. 3-Natha Singh, therefore, Natha Singh would be the contesting respondent. 2. On 15.05.1992, an application for partition was filed by the petitioners claiming 2/3rd share and 1/3rd share of Sadhu Singh. Sadhu Singh raised an objection that there has been a private partition, therefore, proceedings be not continued, without referring to private partition. It was pleaded that the parties are no more co-sharer. CWP No. 3483 of 2009 2 3. Annexure P-3 is a civil court judgment dated 19.10.1995 rendered in first appeal by Additional District Judge, Amritsar declaring the parties to be co-sharers in the suit land. 4. Vide order Annexure P-5 dated 27.04.1995, the Collector directed Assistant Collector Ist Grade to continue with the partition proceedings, the land holding being joint. Sadhu Singh and Natha Singh filed an appeal before Additional Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar which was dismissed on 12.12.1997 while taking into account the issues raised by the contesting parties. 5. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by Commissioner Annexure P-6 dated 12.12.1997 was not challenged and attained finality. Partition proceedings were carried and ordered to be initiated with directions that Naksha Ura be prepared. 6. Order passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade Annexure P-7 dated 01.02.2001 was challenged by the respondent-Natha Singh. Collector, vide order Annexure P-9 dated 27.05.2002, dismissed the appeal of the respondent. 7. The respondent-Natha Singh filed a revision that has resulted in passing of order by Commissioner Annexure P-12 dated 06.01.2006, that has been impugned in this petition. The case has been remanded to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade for re-adjudication on certain issues. 8. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the Financial Commissioner, which has also been dismissed vide the other impugned order Annexure P-16 dated 22.07.2008. The Financial Commissioner has merely said that the Commissioner has given detailed reasons for remanding the case to CWP No. 3483 of 2009 3 Assistant Collector Ist Grade and, therefore, the petition is devoid of merit. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while drawing the attention of the Court towards para no. 6 of the impugned order, contends that the order of remand as passed by the Commissioner is not legally tenable in so much as the issues raised in the said para have already been dealt with by Commissioner earlier while passing order Annexure P-6 dated 12.12.1997. In such circumstances, re-adjudication on the issue would not serve any purpose in law, and in any case delay the proceedings. It has been argued that the petitioners are not in possession of the land. Respondent-Natha Singh is in possession of the entire land and, therefore, delay in proceedings is convenient for the respondent. It has been argued that once the Commissioner had adjudicated on the issues in Annexure P-6 dated 12.12.1997, the same issues could not have been raised, or adjudicated by the same authority. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent, on going through relevant contents of order Annexure P-6 in context of para no. 6 of the impugned order, has not been able to substantially dispute that the issues raised before the Commissioner in the second round of litigation have been dealt with by the Commissioner earlier in order Annexure P-6 dated 12.12.1997. 11. In view of the above, orders Annexure P-12 dated 06.01.2006 and P-16 dated 22.07.2008 are hereby quashed. Parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar on 06.06.2011. The Commissioner would consider the issue in light of what has been said above. Commissioner is required to consider at the first instance that the said authority has already adjudicated upon the issues raised in the subsequent proceedings, in the earlier proceedings while passing order CWP No. 3483 of 2009 4 Annexure P-6 dated 12.12.1997 and thereafter pass appropriate orders, as required by law. 16.05.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?