ASHA CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) 1.This order will dispose of two writ petitions i.e., CWP-21348- 2021 filed by Asha Chauhan and CWP-1849-2023 filed by Kaushalya Chaudhary. Both the cases arises from the same partition proceedings and with the consent of all the parties, the facts are being taken from CWP-21348-2021.

(2.) Petitioner Asha Chauhan had filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Gurugram challenging the orders dtd. 10/7/2020, 14/8/2020 and also Sanad Taksim dtd. 4/6/2021. The Commissioner had observed that the said orders were passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade and accordingly had permitted the petitioners to challenge the said orders before the Collector and had not entertained the revision. On 14/10/2021, a coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following order:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and the State have jointly submitted that since, in the present case the partition proceeding had been initiated after the year 2017 i.e., on 6/11/2018, thus, it would be the Commissioner which would be the appropriate authority before whom a revision can be filed after the issuance of Sanad Taksim. It is further jointly submitted that the provisions of Sec. 16 of the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (in short "the Act") governing revisional power of the Commissioner are similar to the revisional power of the Financial Commissioner under Sec. 16 of the Act prior to the amendment. It is further jointly stated that after passing of the Sanad Taksim it was initially held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court that on account of the revenue authorities being functus officio, only a writ petition would be maintainable. Subsequently, in various judgments it was observed that the Financial Commissioner would have the power to entertain a revision petition after the issuance of Sanad Taksim. As far as the State of Haryana is concerned, an amendment was made in Sec. 16 of the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 which was notified on 10/4/2017 by virtue of which the revisional jurisdiction was withdrawn from the Financial Commissioner. Since the power of revision of the Financial Commissioner was in similar terms with the power of the Commissioner, therefore, once the revisional power has been withdrawn from the Financial Commissioner, the said power has, even as per the stand of the State, to be exercised by the Commissioner. The Collector in the said circumstances, would not have the power to entertain a revision petition after the Sanad Taksim has been issued. It is jointly prayed that the impugned order dtd. 15/9/2021 be set aside and the Commissioner, Gurugram Division be directed to consider and decide the revision petition afresh on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions have submitted that in CWP-21348-2021, a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 14/10/2021 had granted interim order in favour of the petitioner to the effect that dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed and pray that the said interim order may be continued till 3/5/2023 and further prayer has been made that the petitioners be granted liberty to seek extension of the said stay order before the Commissioner.