CWP No.10320 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10320 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.07.2011 Jaipan Singh alias Jaipal ....Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 11.5.2011 passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana, thereby remanding the matter to the Assistant Collector, II-Grade, Bhiwani, with the direction to decide the partition proceedings within a period of three months after considering objections raised by the parties. The brief facts of the present case are that petitioner and respondents No.12 to 21 (and their predecessor-in-interest) filed petition for partition before the Assistant Collector, II-Grade, Bhiwani on 2.3.2004, which was later on amended on the basis of judgment and decree of Civil Court dated 22.3.2004 and consequent mutation dated 25.10.2004. Notices were issued to the contesting respondents i.e. respondents Nos.3 to 11, however, no objections were filed on their CWP No.10320 of 2011 (O&M) 2 behalf on naksha 'k', mode of partition and naksha 'kh' and 'g'. In the absence of contesting respondents Nos.3 to 11, partition was finalized and instrument of partition was issued on 13.8.2007. Having come to know about the instrument of partition dated 13.8.2007, respondents No.3 and 4 filed petition No.8541 of 2008 before this Court on 16.5.2008. However, this Court vide order dated 8.10.2010 has disposed of the writ petition with liberty to respondents No.3 and 4 herein to approach the Financial Commissioner under Section 16(1) of the Land Revenue Act challenging the partition proceedings and preparation of instrument of partition in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amar Khan and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2009(1) RCR(Civil) 741. Thereafter, a revision was preferred before the Financial Commissioner, which was allowed by the Financial Commissioner vide impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully perused the record. Petitioner has admitted in paragraph No.2 of this petition that contesting respondents did not file any objection against naksha 'kh', which was prepared and sanctioned in the absence of the contesting respondents. Learned Financial Commissioner has observed that land in question measuring 125 kanals 19 marlas has been divided in five kuras; entire piece of valuable land situated on Kalinga-Khark road measuring 15 kanals 2 marlas has been allotted to Smt. Anokh Bai daughter of Bagrawat Singh and Jaipan Singh son of Bagrawat Singh, which is against provisions contained in mode of partition; likewise plot measuring 10 marlas (No.232/13/3/1) has been given to Smt. Anokh Bai CWP No.10320 of 2011 (O&M) 3 and Jaipan Singh whereas half part of same plot has been given to Ram Kishan another son of Bagrawat Singh and Mool Singh son of Hari Singh. It has further been observed by learned Financial Commissioner that no portion has been allotted in any residential plot to the contesting respondents while their share in the entire land comes to 31 kanals. Consequently, learned Financial Commissioner has allowed revision petition vide impugned order and directed the Assistant Collector, II- Grade, Bhiwani, to decide the partition proceedings afresh within three months after permitting the contesting respondents to file objections and after hearing the parties. It is settled principle of law that partition shall be sanctioned as per the provisions made in mode of partition. It is also settled principle of law that lis between the parties must be decided as far as possible after giving sufficient opportunities to both the parties and after hearing both the parties. Undisputedly, contesting respondents have not filed any objections against naksha 'kh' and were not heard at the time of preparation of naksha 'kh'. As observed by learned Financial Commissioner partition as sanctioned by Assistant Collector on the face of it is against the provisions of mode of partition. Even otherwise, learned Financial Commissioner has only remanded the matter to be decided after hearing both the parties. In the opinion of this Court, remanding the matter to decide it afresh after hearing both the parties is not such thing which will amount to manifest error of law or jurisdictional error justifying invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. CWP No.10320 of 2011 (O&M) 4 In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge July 07, 2011 R.S.