SAT PAL (DIED) Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are claiming transfer of the portion of the house in question on the ground that the house indivisible. The facts need be noticed only in short as the case is going to be remanded for a fresh decision.

(2.) In the earlier proceedings the house in dispute was held to be indivisible. Not only that in pursuance of the order passed by the authorities, the house in question was put to auction and was purchased by Om Parkash respondent No. 3. However, the question of divisibility again came to the Chief Settlement Commissioner who by his order dated 31.10.1983 (Annexure P-3), accepted the revision petition and remanded the case to the Tehsildar Sales-cum-Managing Officer, Gurdaspur, for fresh decision with regard to the divisibility of the house in dispute. It was further observed that in case it was found that the property is divisible and could be transferred to the respective occupants portion-wise, it should be transferred to them, otherwise the auction of the property in favour of the respondents was to remain intact. The above mentioned observations were given by the Chief Settlement Commissioner after recording some finding to the effect that the petitioners were unable to point out any defect in the conduct and publication of the auction. After the remand of the case vide order dated 31.10.1983, the Tehsildar Sales-cum-Managing Officer in pursuance of the remand order, found that the house was indivisible and, therefore, as per orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the auction was allowed to remand intact. Against the order of Tehsildar Sales-cum-Managing Officer, a revision petition was filed before the Chief Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed vide order dated 22.10.1984 on the short ground that the petitioners did not exhaust the remedy of appeal. etc. Against the order dated 22.10.1984, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner respondent No. 1 who recorded a finding that the petitioners were not obliged to challenge the order of the Managing Officer in appeal before approaching the Chief Settlement Commissioner.

(3.) In my considered opinion, if the Financial Commissioner found that the petitioners were not to approach the higher authorites in appeal against the order of Tehsildar Sales-cum-Managing Officer, the case should have been remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision. I am of the view, that by not doing so, the Financial Commissioner has failed to exercise the jurisdiction which vested in him. In view thereof, the petitioners are quite right in contending that they are entitled to have a decision of their revision petition or merits by the Chief Settlement Commissioner.