Civil Writ Petition No.19910 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19910 of 2011 Date of Decision:25.11.2011 Amar Singh ......Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record is that, petitioner-Amar Singh moved an application against the respondents for partition of the land in dispute, situated in the Village Rasiwash Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. 2. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade, without affecting the due service on the respondents, prepared the Mode of Partition on 08.09.1999 and sanctioned Naksha 'Kh', by means of order dated 24.09.1999(Annexure P-1). 3. Dissatisfied with the order(Annexure P-1), Azad Singh and another- respondents filed the appeal, which was dismissed by the Collector, through the medium of order dated 28.11.2000(Annexure P-2). 4. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-2), Azad Singh and another- respondents filed the revision petition, which was accepted and the matter was remanded back to the Collector, by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, by way of impugned order dated 08.11.2007(Annexure P-3). Civil Writ Petition No.19910 of 2011 2 5. Sequelly, the revision petition filed by petitioner-Amar Singh against the order(Annexure P-3) was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, by virtue of impugned order dated 22.06.2011(Annexure P-4). 6. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present civil writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-3 and P-4), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this respect. 8. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the respondents have the knowledge of pendency of the partition proceedings, so, the Commissioner, Hisar Division, and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, committed a mistake in remanding the case to the Collector, sans merit. 9. The bare perusal of the record would reveal that, the Assistant Collector IInd Grade sanctioned the Mode of Partition on 08.09.1999 and sanctioned Naksha 'Kh' of the land in dispute in the absence of the respondents in a very hasty manner. It is now well-settled proposition of law that no order prejudicially, affecting the rights of any person, can be passed by a public authority, without affording him reasonable opportunity, to defend himself or represent his cause. The authority entrusted with the task of deciding lis between the parties or empowered to make an order, which prejudicially affects the rights of any individual or visits him with civil consequences is duty bound to act, in accordance with law, which has not been done by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade. The Collector also dismissed the appeal in a very casual manner without touching the real controversy between the parties. The mistakes committed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade and the Collector, were rectified by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, by way of impugned order dated 08.11.2007 (Annexure P-3), which in substance is as under:- Civil Writ Petition No.19910 of 2011 3 “I have heard counsel for all the parties and perused the record. I found that Amar Singh respondent filed an application for partition of land measuring 121 Kanals 02 Marlas situated in village Rasiwash, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri in the Court of A.C.IInd Grade, Charkhi Dadri. A.C.IInd Grade, Charkhi Dadri prepared Mode of Partition on 08.09.1999. In Clause 3 to 6, it was written that path-way be left joint and everyone be provided land as per share in every tak. Possession and type of land be considered, trees be left with the land, land be provided good out of good and bad out of bad. Pakka house, Tubewell and Well constructed by any of the party in the land in dispute, that land be given in his Khewat. A.C.IInd Grade, Charkhi Dadri sanctioned Naksha 'Kh' on 24.09.1999 against this order petitioners filed appeal before Collector, Charkhi Dadri and raised various objections in paras 2 to 10 in the appeal. Collector, Charkhi Dadri passed the order dated 28.11.2000 without dealing with these objections. Whereas the Collector, Charkhi Dadri should have passed detailed orders dealing with all the objections. Ruling cited by counsel for the respondents is not applicable in the present case because after passing ex parte order against the petitioners partition proceedings was not done by the A.C.IInd Grade, as per Mode of Partition whereas partition proceedings should have been done as per mode of partition. I am in agreement with the submission of counsel for the petitioners. In the interest of justice, I remand this case to Collector, Charkhi Dadri by setting aside the orders of Courts below with the directions that all the objections raised before Collector, Charkhi Dadri should be decided in accordance with law after hearing both the parties.” 10 Not only that, order(Annexure P-3) of the Commissioner, Hisar Division, was duly upheld by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide impugned order(Annexure P-4). 11. At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation or material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned orders(Annexures P-3 and P-4) are illegal and would invite any interference by this Court in this regard. 12. Meaning thereby, the Commissioner, Hisar Division, and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, have recorded the cogent grounds in this Civil Writ Petition No.19910 of 2011 4 context. Such impugned orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P-3 and P-4) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. November 25, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No