SHER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, prayer made by the petitioner is for quashing of order/proceedings dated 6.1.1986, 7.4.1986, 29.4.1986, 30.5.1986 of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bathinda and orders dated 4.10.1995 and 9.1.1996 of the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and the Financial Commissioner, Revenue respectively.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that on 13.12.1995, Narotam Singh and Bhan singh alias Bhag Singh, respondents No. 5 and 6 filed an application under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 for the partition of join agricultural land measuring 69 Bighas 11 Biswas situated in village Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade (DRO), Bathinda, Vide order dated 23.12.1985, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade issued summons for appearance of petitioner, namely, Sher Singh in the application for partition at 10.00 A.M. on 6.1.1986. The allegation of the petitioner is that the process server on the same date i.e. 6.1.1986 made a report that the petitioner has refused to accept the summons and the service has been effected on the petitioner by affixation. According to the petitioner, report of the process server was not witnessed by any person nor supported by an affidavit of the process server. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide order dated 6.1.1986 merely on the basis of the report of the process server, ordered ex parte proceedings against the petitioner. Vide order dated 7.4.1986, the Assistant Collector approved the mode of partition and vide order dated 29.4.1986, ex parte order of partition was passed. On 30.5.1986, the Assistant Collector issued Sanad Taqseem. Petitioner has alleged that on 6.6.1989, he came to know of the ex parte proceedings/orders of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, when respondents No. 4 and 5 tried to take forcible possession of the land in his possession of the basis of ex parte order of partition. Petitioner has averred that on 9.6.1989, he filed appeal against the ex parte order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade before the Collector, Sub-Division, Bathinda. Appeal filed by the petitioner was accepted by the Collector as he found that the petitioner had been wrongly proceeded against ex parte. He thus remanded the case to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bathinda for fresh decision. Petitioner has alleged that after the remand order, none of the parties except the petitioner, put in appearance before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bathinda who dismissed the application for partition on 14.6.1990 and consigned it to the record room. According to the petitioner, possession of land in question which respondents No. 4 and 5 had forcibly taken, was returned to the petitioner vide Rapat Roznamcha Waquiati No. 399 dated 2.5.1991. It is averred that against order dated 9.11.1989 passed by the Collector, respondents No. 4 and 5 filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. Vide order dated 4.10.1995, the Commissioner accepted appeal of respondents No. 4 and 5. Petitioner being aggrieved of order dated 4.10.1995 preferred an appeal before the Financial Commissioner who dismissed the same on 9.1.1996. Order dated 4.10.1995 of Commissioner and 9.1.1996 of the Financial Commissioner are being challenged in the present writ petition on the ground that there had been no service of summons upon the petitioner who was the only person adversely affected by the order of partition of land which had taken place in his absence. According to him, valuable land abutting the Bathinda-Dabwali road has been allotted to the said respondents out of his established possession and without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. He has contended that the land of any other co-sharer has not been touched and it is only his land which has been partitioned and given to respondents No. 4 and 5.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.