In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.14320 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:17.9.2009 Saroj Lamba .....Petitioner v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Surender Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The prayer made in the petition is for transfer of the review application No.11 of 2008-09 (Annexure-P.2) filed before the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana to some other Court of competent jurisdiction or in the alternative to grant an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he confines his prayer only to the hearing of the review application (Annexure-P.2) by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana. It is submitted that Madhupreet Kaur wife of Suraj Parkash Singh was the owner of land measuring 12 Kanals 18 Marlas in Village Ganauli, Tehsil and District Panchkula. The said land was purchased by C.W.P. No.14320 of 2009 [2] Madhupreet Kaur vide registered sale deed dated 25.9.1998 and mutation No.602 on the basis of the said sale was sanctioned in her favour. Teja Ram and Amru alias Amar Singh (respondents No.6 and 7) as also Nathu and Surjit were tenants of aforesaid Madhupreet Kaur. They had failed to pay arrears of rent as a result of which the ejectment petition filed by Madhupreet Kaur under Section 14-A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (as applicable in Haryana), was allowed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Raipur Rani, Tehsil and District Panchkula vide order dated 22.1.2001. It was held in the order of ejectment that was passed that respondents No.6 and 7 were tenants in respect of the land and had failed to comply with the notice sent to them in Form N within the stipulated period. Teja Ram and Amru alias Amar Singh (respondents No.6 and 7) as well as Nathu and Surjit aggrieved against the said order dated 22.1.2001 filed two appeals before the Collector, Panchkula which were dismissed vide order dated 22.2.2002. The tenants Teja Ram and Amru alias Amar Singh (respondents No.6 and 7) as well as Nathu and Surjit filed two separate revision petitions before the learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. which were dismissed vide order dated 28.4.2005. After the passing of the order dated 28.4.2005 it is stated that Madhupreet Kaur filed an application for issuing warrants of possession and the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Raipur Rani issued warrants of possession vide order dated 10.5.2005. In pursuance of the said warrants, possession of land in question was delivered to Madhupreet Kaur on 20.5.2005. In this regard, proceedings were recorded by the Halqa Kanungo also. The tenants Teja Ram and Amru alias Amar Singh (respondents No.6 and 7) as well as Nathu C.W.P. No.14320 of 2009 [3] and Surjit, however, filed ROR Nos.223 and 224/2004-05 before the learned Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1). The said RORs to the knowlege of the petitioner were got dismissed as withdrawn and the possession of the land in question was delivered to Madhupreet Kaur. Khasra Girdawari for the year 2006-07 in respect of the land in question was sanctioned in the name of Madhupreet Kaur. The petitioner Saroj Lamba, it is submitted, purchased the land measuring 12 Kanals 8 Marlas which was subject matter of ROR No.224/2004-05 from Madhupreet Kaur vide registered sale deed No.1479/1 dated 3.3.2006. The mutation of the purchase of land has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner on 15.3.2006. Since then, it is submitted that the petitioner is in actual physical possession of the land in question. It is submitted that after the ROR No.224/2004-05 was dismissed, the matter has been re-opened by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana vide order dated 17.4.2009 (Annexure- P.3). It has been observed that in fact the connected ROR No.223/2004-05 had been dismissed as withdrawn and not ROR No.224/2004-5. In any case, it is submitted that after the ROR No.224/2004-05 had been dismissed and possession of the land had been delivered to Madhupreet Kaur the previous owner on 20.5.2005, the petitioner had purchased the same vide sale deed dated 3.3.2006. Therefore, the petitioner being a necessary party was liable to be heard before passing the order dated 17.4.2009 (Annexure- P.3) by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that if the petitioner submits necessary application along with copy of this order before the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana for considering the review C.W.P. No.14320 of 2009 [4] application (Annexure-P.2) filed by the petitioner on 29.5.2009, the learned Financial Commissioner shall consider the same in accordance with law. September 17, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:No