Punjab-Haryana High Court
Iqbal Singh vs Financial Commissioner (Revenue), ... on 10 May, 2017
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
CWP No.10016 of 2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.10016 of 2017
Date of Decision.10.05.2017
Iqbal Singh ........Petitioner
Vs
Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others
........Respondents
Present: Mr. Raman Goklaney, Advocate
for the petitioner.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner had filed the revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the order of Collector dated 29.09.2015 and as well as sanad takseem on the premise that earlier the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed on the ground that sanad takseem has already been passed. It is settled law that once sanad takseem is issued, it is the Court of Financial Commissioner, which would have jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition. The factum of passing the sanad takseem is reflected in the application seeking condonation of delay and as well as the stay application. Part of the same is reproduced as under:-
"That since Sanad Taksim having being issued on the basis of ex parte order dated 14.10.2013 and this Hon'ble Court after the preparation of Sanad Taksim is having jurisdiction, so the present application along with the revision is filed before this Hon'ble Court."
The Commissioner should not have dismissed the application seeking condonation in limine and ought to have called upon other party to confirm the aforementioned aspect.
1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 04-06-2017 00:04:31 ::: CWP No.10016 of 2017 -2- Notice of motion.
Mr.Yatinder Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Instead of calling upon the private respondents, as the revision petition of the petitioner has been dismissed in limine, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice as it would unnecessarily entail into defraying the costs of litigation and delay the adjudication of lis. The fact remains that as per the ratio decidendi culled out in the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Amar Khan and others Vs. State of Punjab and others 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 741 once the sanad takseem has been passed, the remedy would lie under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 16(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1997, which has been availed by the petitioner. The Financial Commissioner should not have dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner in limine on the premise that fact of sanad takseem has not been disclosed whereas there is a specific mention in the ground of application seeking stay, much less, condonation of delay and the factum of passing of sanad taksim is also reflected from the order of the Collector. The Financial Commissioner ought to have summoned the record to ascertain the same, instead of rejecting the matter.
Resultantly, the order under challenge is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Financial Commissioner to decide the same afresh, particularly, when this Court had been apprised of passing of sanad taksim vide Annexure P-7. The petitioner shall place on record the sanad taksim. The Financial Commissioner is directed to decide the controversy in view of the observations made above, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, in accordance with law.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 04-06-2017 00:04:32 ::: CWP No.10016 of 2017 -3- The parties along with their counsel shall appear before the Financial Commissioner on 29.05.2017.
(AMIT RAWAL)
JUDGE
May 10, 2017
Pankaj*
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 04-06-2017 00:04:32 :::