IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH .... CWP No.13879 of 2009 .... Date of decision :7.9.2009 Gulab Devi and others ….. Petitioners Versus Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana and others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 30.7.2008 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana (respondent No.1), the order dated 11.1.2008 (Annexure P3) passed by the learned Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.2) and the order dated 9.6.2006/22.6.2006 (Annexure P2) passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Nangal Choudhary. A further prayer has been made for directing the learned Financial Commissioner to decide the case on merits by passing a speaking order after considering the arguments of the petitioners. Respondents No.6 to 13 filed an application for partition of land measuring 9 kanals 18 marlas situated in village Momenpur, Tehsil Narnaul, Distt. Mahendergarh alleging that they were co-sharers of 1/6th share in the land. It is submitted that the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, CWP No.13879 of 2009 [2] Nangal Choudhary passed an illegal order dated 09/22.6.2006 (Annexure- P.2) in terms of which it was ordered that the time for filing the reply had lapsed. It is submitted that the higher revenue authorities have also not granted effective opportunity to the petitioners to file their reply. As already noticed, the case of respondents No.6 to 13 is for the partition of land measuring 9 Kanals 18 Marlas amongst the co-sharers. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the successors-in-interest of Vijay Kumar who is the brother of Ghanshayam (respondent No.12) and Vidhyasagar (respondent No.13). In this matter, it is submitted that Vijay Kumar, Ghanshayam (respondent No.12) and Vidhyasagar (respondent No.13) had 2 Kanals 11 Marlas share in land measuring 9 Kanals 18 Marlas. Out of 2 Kanals 11 Marlas land, the petitioners are entitled for 17 Marlas of land. However, they have not been given effective opportunities to file their reply. It may be noticed that the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.2) in his order dated 11.1.2008 (Annexure-P.3) observed that the power of attorney on behalf of the petitioners (respondents before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade) was filed on 28.12.2005. Thereafter, 10 dates were given to the petitioners to file their reply. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nangal Choudhary gave them last opportunity on 9.6.2006 to file their reply. However, on the said date also the petitioners did not file their reply before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Thereafter, opportunity for filing the reply was declined and the case was fixed for recording the statement of both the parties on 22.6.2006. After recording the statement of both the CWP No.13879 of 2009 [3] parties, the mode of partition was sanctioned on which none of the parties raised objection. The field staff prepared the Naksha `Bay’ on receipt of which both the parties were given time to file their objections. On this, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade in the presence of both the parties inspected the disputed land and after accepting the objections of Vijay Kumar (since deceased) and represented by his LRs i.e. the present petitioners after amending Naksha `Bay’ confirmed it. The petitioners had filed the revision petition before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon against the order dated 9.6.2009 whereby further opportunity to file written statement was declined. It was observed that the revision petition had been filed against the orders dated 9.6.2006 and 22.6.2006. It was held that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade had granted sufficient time to the petitioners to file their written statement but they did not file the written statement and thereafter their defence was closed but despite that the lower Court had kept on record the statement in which a question of title was raised. It was observed that the statement of Vijay Kumar showed that he was in agreement for partition of the land according to the possession. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade had sanctioned the mode of partition with the consent of both the parties on which none of the parties have raised any objection. The field staff prepared the Naksha `Bay’ on receipt of which objections were filed by the petitioners which were disposed of after the Assistant Collector Ist Grade visited the disputed land in the presence of both the parties and after accepting the objections had sanctioned Naksha `Bay’. It was observed that now as `Sanad Takseem’ was issued and CWP No.13879 of 2009 [4] possession had changed and mutation on the basis of the partition had also been sanctioned and, therefore, all proceedings in the case had been completed. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed. The petitioners thereafter filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner who found no ground to interfere with the order dated 11.1.2008 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed. It may be noticed that the `Sanad Takseem' had been sanctioned and implemented. The possession of the land on the basis of `Sanad Takseem' has been given to the respective parties and mutation even has been sanctioned. It is not shown by the petitioners as to what prejudice has been caused to them in the final partition in respect of the land that has been allotted to them. Insofar as filing of reply is concerned, the grievance of the petitioners is that their objections have not been considered. However, it may be noticed that despite being granted 10 opportunities to file their reply, the petitioners did not file any reply. Besides, Vijay Kumar (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) had made a statement before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade that he was agreeable to the partition of land on the basis of possession. It is not shown that in the Sanad Takseem which has been issued, the possession of the petitioners has not been kept intact. Against the order issuing Sanad Takseem, no revision or appeal lies, however the party is not without remedy. A Division Bench of this Court in Resham Singh @ Dilbagh Singh v. Assistant Collector Ist Grade- cum-Tehsildar, Phillaur and others, CWP No. 19985 of 2005, decided on CWP No.13879 of 2009 [5] 15.5.2007 has observed that the powers conferred under Section 16(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (`Act' – for short) would take within their ambit a quasi-judicial appraisal of the legality of the Sanad Takseem and an aggrieved person may, in exceptional circumstances, invoke the Financial Commissioner’s jurisdiction, under Section 16 (1) of the Act. It was held that Section 16 (1) of the Act confers suo motu revisional powers upon the Financial Commissioner to call for and examine the legality of any proceeding, pending before or decided by a revenue officer. It was observed that the petitioner in the first instance should have approached the Court of Financial Commissioner by way of revision. The said view was reiterated in the case of Puran Singh @ Sampuran Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Development), Punjab Chandigarh and others, 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 712. It was held in the said case that the Act does not provide for an appeal against `Sanad Takseem' but an aggrieved person cannot be left without a forum to seek recourse. Finality attached to a `Sanad Takseem' can always be impugned by invoking the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or suo motu powers conferred upon the Financial Commissioner. The dictum in Resham Singh @ Dilbagh Singh’s case (supra) was followed and the case was remanded back to Financial Commissioner. In the present case, the `Sanad Takseem’ that has been prepared has not been placed on record. In any case, it is not shown as to what prejudice is caused to the petitioners on the basis of partition that has been carried out and effected. In any case, in case the petitioners are still CWP No.13879 of 2009 [6] aggrieved, they may invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Financial Commissioner in the first instance by showing to the learned Financial Commissioner as to how their rights are being affected with the sanction of `Sanad Takseem’ and partition of land and as to what prejudice has been caused to them. However, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned orders in the exercise of the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 7, 2009. *amit/hsp*