Civil Writ Petition No.8469 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8469 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 18 , 2011 Karan Singh (since deceased through LRs.) .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, Advocate, for respondent No.6. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner (since deceased) had earlier approached this Court being aggrieved against orders passed by the Collector, Sonepat and the Commissioner of Sonepat District. While dealing with the petition, the Court had passed an order on 14.5.2009, which reads as under:- “The Collector and Commissioner have currently recorded a finding of fact that the land is described as a 'charand' in the revenue record and have made reference to the jamabandi for the year 1956-57. In this Jamabandi entry, the land is described as Civil Writ Petition No.8469 of 2010 -2- Banjar Kadim Charand. Reference is also made where it is noticed that the land in dispute was reserved for common purposes of the Village community. As per the entries in the Shart- Wazibularz, this was to be used for Biswedars and Non-biswedars. Counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that earlier it was found that the land is described as Thola and thus, would not fall within the definition of shamlat for the Panchayat to make an application in this regard. This finding of fact has subsequently been reversed in the impugned order. The writ court certainly would not be an appropriate forum to re-appreciate the evidence and facts to come to any different conclusion. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition as he has an alternative remedy to approach the Financial Commissioner against the impugned order. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.” After noticing the facts and the merits of the controversy, the Court had declined to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner had sought permission to Civil Writ Petition No.8469 of 2010 -3- withdraw the writ petition on the ground that he has an alternative remedy of approaching the Financial Commissioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner had declined to interfere against the impugned order on the ground that he did not have jurisdiction to deal with the issue. The petitioner has, accordingly, impugned the said order passed by the Financial Commissioner through the present writ petition. Once this Court has already expressed its view and has given liberty to the petitioner to approach the Financial Commissioner, on his asking, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate the same by adopting the present approach. In a way, the petitioner apparently is seeking review of the order dated 14.5.2009, which cannot be permitted. Dismissed. July 18, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE