CWP No.18672 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18672 of 2008 Date of decision:13.08.2010 Jagjit Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab through the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA. Present: Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Anu Pal, AAG Punjab for the respondents no.1 to 5. Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for respondents no.6 to 8. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA.J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 13.09.2005, 13.12.2005, 08.08.2006 and 08.07.2008, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Tarn Taran, the Collector, Tarn Taran, the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh, respectively. The petitioner impugned the mode of partition, before the Collector, by alleging that the mode of partition does not provide for an equitable partition of valuable land. The appeal was surprisingly dismissed by the Collector, Taran Taran, by holding that it is premature. The revision filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, respectively were dismissed on the ground that his objections are frivolous and the Sanad Takseem has been drawn up. CWP No.18672 of 2008 -2- Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the document of final partition, the petitioner has been allotted Barani land whereas respondents no.6 to 8 have been allotted Nehri land, thus, fortifying the petitioner's initial apprehension that the petitioner would be allotted less valuable land. It is argued that the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, have dismissed the revisions on the ground that the Sanad Takseem has been drawn up. The petitioner has, therefore, been deprived of any remedy. Counsel for respondents no.6 to 8 submits that the petitioner's so called grievance is incorrect as land has been distributed in accordance with the mode of partition. The petitioner did not challenge, the mode of partition, before the sanction of the Sanad Takseem and, therefore, cannot pray that partition proceedings should be re-opened. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), reads as follows: - “16. Power to call for, examine and revise proceedings of Revenue officers.-- (1) The Financial Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue officer subordinate to him. (2) A Commissioner or Collector may call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue officer under his control. (3) If in any case in which a Collector has called for a record and he is of the opinion that the proceedings taken or order made should be modified or reversed, he shall report the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Commissioner whose CWP No.18672 of 2008 -3- decision shall be final. (4) The Financial Commissioner or Commissioner may in any case called for by himself under sub-section (1) or under sub- section (2), as the case may be, pass such orders as he thinks fit. Provided that he shall not under this section pass an order reversing or modifying any proceeding or order of a subordinate Revenue officer and affecting any question of right between private persons without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard. Provided further that the cases reported to the Financial Commissioner under sub-section (3) as it existed prior to the commencement of the Punjab Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1998, shall be decided by him as heretobefore.” Section 16(1) of the Act, confers, plenary power, upon the Financial Commissioner, to call for and examine the record of any revenue case pending or disposed of by any revenue officer, subordinate to him. The language, employed by Section 16, puts paid to the oft repeated argument that after the sanction of a Sanad Takseem, the Financial Commissioner, is prohibited from examining the correctness or legality of partition proceedings. A Financial Commissioner cannot reject a revision on the sole ground that the instrument of final partition has been drawn up. Reference in this regard may be made to a Division Bench judgment of this court reported as Amar Khan and others Versus State of Punjab and others, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 741. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is partly allowed, the order dated 08.07.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh, to decide the matter afresh and in accordance with law, within three months of CWP No.18672 of 2008 -4- the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh, on 28.09.2010. 13.08.2010 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE