KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dated 23.10.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, dismissing the revision of the petitioner and upholding the orders passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division and Collector, Sub Division, Mansa, vide which the ex-parte order dated 8.10.2004 passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Tehsil Mansa, was set aside, remanding the case for deciding afresh after hearing all the parties concerned. Brief facts of the case are that application for partition was filed before Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Mansa. Vide order dated 28.11.2006, Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, approved the Naqsha Zeem prepared by the field staff and ordered that sanad takseem be issued. Respondents No. 3 to 6 filed an appeal before the Collector on the ground that they were illegally proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 8.10.2004. They had purchased 16 kanals of land, whereas only 8 kanals was allotted to them, besides the inferior quality of land. Hearing both the parties, the Collector, Sub Division, Mansa, vide his order dated 9.6.2008 (Annexure P-4) accepted the appeal, setting aside the orders passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade and remanded the matter for its fresh decision. Dissatisfied, petitioner filed his appeal before the Commissioner, which was dismissed, vide order dated 17.2.2010 (Annexure P-5) and his revision before the Financial Commissioner also failed, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.10.2012 (Annexure P-6). Thus, feeling aggrieved against the above said impugned orders, petitioner has approached this court by way of instant petition under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities were contrary to the facts of the case and also against the relevant provisions of law. He further submits that respondents No. 3 to 6 were rightly proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 8.10.2004. the Collector, Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner failed to appreciate the true facts of the case, while passing the impugned orders. He finally prays for setting aside the impugned orders allowing the present writ petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length, after perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the respondent revenue authorities are factually correct and legally justified, which deserve to be upheld for the following more than one reasons.