Civil Writ Petition No.9091 of 2006 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9091 of 2006 Date of decision : 13.7.2009 Gulzar Singh and others .....Petitioners Versus Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ajaib Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No. 1 to 4. Respondents No. 5 to 37 exparte vide order dated 21.1.2009. S. D. ANAND, J. The challenge herein is to the validity of the impugned order (Annexure P-6) on various averments including a precise averment that the petitioners had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing. The petitioners herein (and also before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) were represented by Shri B.S.Jaswal, Advocate. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the respondents pointed out that Shri B.S.Jaswal, Advocate could not represent the petitioners as he had earlier represented two of the contesting parties. On that announcement, Shri B.S.Jaswal, Advocate sought the leave of the competent authority to withdraw as a counsel. He did explain otherwise that he did not recollect whether he had appeared on Civil Writ Petition No.9091 of 2006 -2- **** behalf of the respondents therein who, too, bring that fact to his notice. On his withdrawal, the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) passed the following order:- “Shri B.S.Jaswal, Advocate had been representing both the parties and has not disclosed this matter to the court, therefore, the case is being considered on the facts available on the file and not on the basis of his arguments, except for one thing, that Smt. Taro and Veero had died in 1992 cannot be believed since he himself represented them in 1998.” It is apparent from a perusal of the above order that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity to engage another counsel of there own choice. The petitioners were not present before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) in person. Though it is noticed in the impugned order itself that Shri B.S.Jaswal, had concluded arguments, it cannot be denied that he did not get an opportunity to rebut whatever could be argued on behalf of the party opposite. Infact, the impugned order does not even notice that arguments had been addressed by Shri P.L.Singla, learned counsel who appeared before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) on behalf of some of the respondents. It is, thus, apparent from the impugned order that the principles of natural justice had not been complied with. It is to state the obvious that an authority exercising the judicial or quasi judicial functions must hear both the parties before adjudicating upon the matter. Even the learned State counsel is not in a position to contest the correctness of the factual premise of the observation made by this Court. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order Civil Writ Petition No.9091 of 2006 -3- **** (Annexure P-6) shall stand set aside. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab is directed to dispose of the appeal (R.O.R. No.839 of 2001) afresh within one month from today. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the competent authority. Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Special Secretary. July 13, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE