SATWANT SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present intra Court appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 15.05.2013 passed in CWP No. 10536 of 2013 titled Satwant Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab & others. The Learned Single Judge noticed that the revision petition was dismissed in default on 02.04.2008 by the Financial Commissioner and the application for restoration was moved after 4 years 5 months and 29 days and there was no reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay. Therefore, the order dismissing the restoration on 15.01.2013 has been upheld by the Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. A perusal of the writ petition would go on to show that initially, 7 applications were filed regarding khewat Nos. 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 & 177 in Village Nahal, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar by Swaran Singh, Mohinder Singh, Daljit Kaur. The said applications were consolidated and the mode of partition was proposed on 20.05.1987. Thereafter, the partition proceedings were sanctioned by order dated 30.11.1987. Inderjit Singh, respondent No. 4 had challenged the said partition but his appeal was dismissed on 08.04.1988 and thereafter, revision had been dismissed as infructuous by the Financial Commissioner (Cooperation), Punjab, Chandigarh on 03.06.1999. However, his subsequent application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 20.10.1987 was filed on 28.10.1999 which was rejected on 24.12.1999 but in a revision, the Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 20.09.2001 (Annexure P -3), came to the conclusion that Inderjit Singh had not been served. The ex parte proceedings were held to be illegal and Assistant Collector 1st Grade had acted with haste and accordingly, the Financial Commissioner remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Phillaur to inspect the spot and see whether injustice had been caused. It was further directed that a detailed speaking order be passed within 30 days and the parties were directed to appear on 24.09.2001. The said order, allegedly, had been challenged by the grandfather of the petitioner, Swaran Singh by filing ROR No. 346 of 2002 which was dismissed on account of default for non -appearance on 02.04.2008 (Annexure P -4). The application, thereafter, for restoration which was filed by the petitioner (appellant herein) was also dismissed on 15.01.2013. The said two orders have been further upheld in the writ petition by the Learned Single Judge which is now subject matter of challenge.

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant very vehemently argued that it would be clear from the order dated 01/03.06.1999 (Annexure P -1) that in pursuance of the mode of partition, the parties had exchanged land and the partition had become final and vide the order dated 20.09.2001, the Commissioner had reopened partition proceedings at the instance of Inderjit Singh, respondent No. 4.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant has not been able to show or demonstrate to this Court as to what is the exact position after the order dated 20.09.2001 was passed nor there is any such mention either in the letters patent appeal or in the writ petition as to what has happened in pursuance of the said direction by the Financial Commissioner which was passed more than a decade back. The submission of the counsel for the appellant is only that the grandfather of the appellant was pursuing the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner and since his grandfather, Swaran Singh expired on 13.11.2006, the revision petition was dismissed on 13.04.2008 and the application for restoration was then filed which was also dismissed on 15.01.2013.