MAHIPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON July 9, 1996 the Assistant Collector ordered the partition of the land in dispute. Aggrieved by the order, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 filed an appeal before the Collector. The appeal was accepted vide order dated November 4, 1997. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. The petitioners challenged this order before the Commissioner. Vide order dated February 25, 1999, the Commissioner allowed the appeal. A copy of this order is at Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. The revision having been allowed, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners. He contends that some of the co-sharers having been served, the fact that respondent Nos. 5 to 7 had not been properly served with the notice of the proceedings was of no consequence.

(3.) IN the present case, it is the admitted position that respondent Nos. 5 to 7 had not been duly served. Thus, the Collector had allowed their appeal. The Commissioner had overlooked this fact. Resultantly, the Financial Commissioner has corrected the error. In the process, no injustice has been caused to the petitioners. The case has been only remanded to the Assistant Collector for a fresh decision after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. No other point has been raised. No ground for interference is made out. The Writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.