GHOTIA Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point involved in this case is whether the Financial Commissioner had any jurisdiction to direct the revenue authorities for correction of the Khasra Girdawari or whether the Director, Consolidation of Holdings was competent to pass such order. After the consolidation proceedings were completed in village Miran, tehsil and district Bhiwani, the petitioner made an application to the Consolidation Officer for correction of the Khasra Girdawari, which was allowed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer exercising the powers of Assistant Collector 2nd Grade on 27th April, 1970. Dissatisfied by the said order, respondents Nos. 5 to 8 filed appeal before the Collector (S.D.O. Civil), Bhiwani, which was dismissed on 4th November, 1970. Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 then preferred revision petition before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, who vide his order dated 11th June, 1971 made recommendation to the Financial Commissioner, for acceptance of the revision petition. The Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 22nd November, 1972 (copy Annexure 'A' to the writ petition) accepted the recommendations of the Commissioner and set aside the orders of the Collector and the Assistant Collector. It is this order of the Financial Commissioner which is challenged by way of this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The record-of-rights is to be prepared under Section 22 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The Assistant Consolidation Officer decided the application of the petitioner for correction of the entries in Khasra Girdawaris as Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. The appeal against such order could be preferred only before the Collector and revision could be filed before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner and not before the Consolidation Authorities. Thus, in my view, the order Annexure 'A' passed by the Financial Commissioner is within his jurisdiction and is in accordance with law. Section 22 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, reads as under :-

(3.) Consequently this petition is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.