CWP No.19176 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.19176 of 2006 Date of Decision: 23.4.2010 Mange .....Petitioner Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Addl.A.G. Haryana, for respondents no.1 to 4. Mr. Ashwani Verma, Advocate for respondent no.16. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 24.7.2003 and 8.12.2005, passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Commissioner is illegal and void, as the revision was accepted without assigning any reason and without condoning delay. It is further submitted that the observation that possessions have been altered is contrary to the record and even otherwise, the Assistant Collector,Ist Grade, has recorded cogent reasons for disturbing possession. Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that the order passed by the Commissioner, remitting the matter to the Collector, is legal and valid. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade had no CWP No.19176 of 2006 2 jurisdiction to disturb possession in violation of the mode of partition. The mode of partition clearly records that possession would only be altered, if necessary. It is argued that even otherwise, as the Commissioner has merely remanded the case to the Collector, the present writ petition should be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused and impugned orders and find no reason to hold that the Commissioner or the Financial Commissioner have committed any error of jurisdiction, as would require interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Commissioner has remitted the matter to the Collector, to examine reasons for disturbing possession in a greater degree of detail, as the mode of partition records that possession shall be disturbed, if necessary. As a consequence, the writ petition is dismissed. The Collector is directed to decide the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order after taking into consideration arguments that may be raised by the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector on 10.6.2010. During the pendency of the appeal before the Collector, parties shall maintain status-quo with respect to possession. 23.4.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE