IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10582 of 2009 Date of decision: 30.7.2009 Som Dutt ….. Petitioner Versus FC Appeals, Punjab and Others ….. Respondents Present : Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab vide order dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure P4) has held that since Sanad Taqseem stands issued, no intervention can be made and remedy, if any, lies in the Civil Court. It is submitted that the Financial Commissioner in fact can go into the question of Sanad Taqseem as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Resham Singh @ Dilbag Singh v. Assistant Collector Ist Grade-cum-Tehsildar, Phillaur and Others CWP No. 19985 of 2005 decided on 15.5.2007 and reiterated in Puran Singh @ Sampuran Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Development), Punjab Chandigarh and Others, 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 712. Therefore, it is submitted that the Financial Commissioner is liable to entertain the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the Sanad Taqseem. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (“Act” – for short) was filed before the Financial Commissioner against the order CWP No. 10582 of 2009 [2] dated 22.2.2007 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ferozepur. The revision petition was not filed against the order of Sanad Taqseem. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the order dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure P4) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab. In case, the petitioner has a grievance against the Sanad Taqseem, the same can be assailed before the learned Financial Commissioner in view of the afore-referred judgments. He may, if so advised, avail the necessary remedy. However, insofar as the present petition is concerned, it cannot be said that there is any error of jurisdiction in the order dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure P4) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the ‘Sanad Takseem’ before the Financial Commissioner in terms of Section 16 of the Act. Accordingly, the Civil Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE July 30, 2009 amit