LPA No. 1217 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1217 of 2010 Date of decision:- 24.09.2010 Chhabila ......Appellant Vs State of Haryana through Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Revenue, Civil Secretariat, Haryana, Chandigarh. ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: - Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, J (ORAL) Heard. None of the grounds urged in support of the Letters Parent Appeal are found to be tenable. The contention that against the partition made no appeal lies to the Collector and, instead, a revision petition should have been filed by the fifth respondent before the Commissioner is purely a technical objection which does not affect the merits of the case. This is in view of the fact that eventually the order of partition was examined by the Commissioner and, thereafter, by the Financial Commissioner in exercise of the revisional powers under the Act. The second contention urged is on the basis of the LPA No. 1217 of 2010 2 provisions contained in Section 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, which provides for the mode of service of summons. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, service was duly completed on respondent No. 5. However, in view of the clear contrary findings on this issue, as recorded in the order of the learned Financial Commissioner, which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge, we do not consider the submissions advanced to be tenable. That apart, the Financial Commissioner in the order dated 31.03.2010 has clearly recorded that “This is certainly not an equitable partition and therefore major injustice has been done to the respondents.” In such circumstances, the learned Financial Commissioner thought it proper to interfere and direct remand of the case to the Assistant Collector for a fresh consideration. The learned Single Judge found the course of action adopted by the Financial Commissioner to be justified and in accordance with law. We concur with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal by refusing admission. (RANJAN GOGOI) JUDGE (RAJAN GUPTA) 24.09.2010 JUDGE Amodh