CWP No.6864 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6864 of 2009 Date of decision:13.08.2010 Paramjit Kaur ...... Petitioner VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Punjab Chandigarh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA. Present: Mr.H.N.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Anu Pal, AAG Punjab for the respondent no.1. Mr.S.K.Singla, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA.J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 21.01.2009, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh, dismissing her application for being impleaded as a party in ROR No.14 of 2001 titled as Gurdev Singh Versus State of Punjab and others. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application has been rejected without assigning any reason or by passing a speaking order. It is submitted that Narain Singh, who was owner of 270 acres of land, had two sons Uggar Singh and Gurdial Singh. Uggar Singh had a son Hartej Bahadur Singh. The petitioner is the daughter of Hartej Bahadur Singh. Respondents no.2 and 3, Rajinder Singh and Kaka Singh are the sons of Gurdial Singh. The entire land owned by Narain Singh was included in the holding of Gurdial Singh, and assessed as his permissible and surplus area. The petitioner is therefore, a necessary party, to proceedings for CWP No.6864 of 2009 -2- determination of the surplus area. Counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 submits that surplus area proceedings relate to the land that belonged to Gurdial Singh. During his lifetime, Uggar Singh did not raise any objection. The application filed by the petitioner was therefore, rightly rejected. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order which reads as follows: - “Announced. Application for impleading as party in this case has been considered and rejected. Now, the case is adjourned to 8.4.2009 for further proceedings. Senior State counsel be informed and Sh.G.S.Jeji, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner in ROA 9/01 also be informed. A perusal of the impugned order, leaves no manner of doubt that the Financial Commissioner, rejected the application, without assigning any reason much less by recording a reasoned order. The writ petition is allowed, the order dated 21.01.2009, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh, is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh, to decide the application afresh and in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh, on 27.09.2010. This order, shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion, on the rights of the parties. 13.08.2010 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE