CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4052 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 02, 2011 Madanpal .....Petitioner VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana, Chandigrh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Jagat Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 and 4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is a co-sharer with the respondents. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 had filed partition application, claiming 1/15th share in the total land. According to the petitioner, he was not served but was proceeded exparte on 24.12.1999. The proposed mode of partition was confirmed on 9.4.2001 and the partition order was passed on 30.5.2001. Sanad Takseem had accordingly been CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4052 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: issued. Later, it was pointed out to Assistant Collector that there were certain technical defects in the partition and he sought permission of the Collector for review of the order. The permission was given on 5.7.2004 and the order was reviewed on 14.7.2004. As per the petitioner, this was also done without any notice to the petitioner or any other party. When the petitioner learnt about the same, he filed an appeal before the Collector against this order dated 14.7.2004 and Collector remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector IInd Grade. This order was set-aside by the Commissioner in a revision, against the petitioner approached the Financial Commissioner, who has dismissed the same on 10.7.2008. The petitioner has accordingly filed this writ petition to challenge the orders passed by the Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier the petitioner was proceeded exparte, which order was reviewed and that too without hearing the petitioner or other party. The petitioner has not challenged the order whereby he was proceeded exparte in the year 1999 and whereafter the Sanad Takseem issued. Counsel for the respondents would point out that this order was reviewed in technical sense and it can not be termed as such. It was only to remove the clerical mistake, where Killa Nos.5/17/2 and 24 were needed to the corrected, for which the permission of the Collector was sought. The clerical mistake has been rectified and so it can not be termed as a review. The petitioner has waited far too long to impugn this order CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4052 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: of review, which is really not effecting any rights but only a correction of clerical mistake. There is no challenge made to the original order, whereby he was proceeded against exparte in the year 1999 and Sanad Takseem has already been issued. At this stage, no interference is called for in the facts of the case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. August 02, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE