SATPAL SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus for quashing the order dated 24.04.2003 (Annexure P-6) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby the orders dated 08.01.1999, 25.10.2000 and 22.01.2000 passed by authorities below i.e. Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Collector and Commissioner, respectively, have been set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioners purchased land measuring 14 kanals 12 marlas from Mulakh Raj son of Atto Devi vide registered sale deed dated 03.04.1995. In the sale deed it was specifically mentioned that possession of property comprised in khasra No.24/2 (6-12) and khasra No.17 (8-0) situated in village Gobind Majra, Tehsil, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, has been delivered to the petitioners and they are in cultivating possession. It is the case of the petitioners that when the sale deed was executed, although it is of share, but possession of specific khasra numbers in actual possession of the vendor has been delivered to them. It is further pleaded that not only this, even affidavit has been tendered by Mulakh Raj son of Atto Devi as well as Atto Devi respondent No.5 herself. Considering these documents and the spot inspection, Assistant Collector corrected the khasra girdawri of both the numbers in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 08.01.1999 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter appeal was preferred before the Collector, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.10.2000 (Annexure P-3). Aggrieved respondent No.5 preferred revision before the Commisioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2000 (Annexure P-4). Against the orders passed by authorities below, respondent No.5 preferred second revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 24.04.2003 (Annexure P-6). It is further averred that civil litigation was also pending between the parties in which civil suit has been decided in favour of petitioners and appeal is pending.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that firstly in the second revision Financial Commissioner could only have set aside the orders if there was illegality and perversity in the orders. Secondly, already civil Court has recorded a finding which is otherwise binding on the revenue Courts. It is further submitted that documents, which were the affidavits, have been specifically placed on record before the civil Court as well as before the revenue authorities, which have been taken into consideration in addition to spot inspection. Otherwise also, proceedings before the revenue authorities are summary in nature. If at all any party is aggrieved, same can be challenged by way of civil suit. It is further contended that principle of estoppel atleast will be applicable against the person when there are specific recitals with regard to handing over of the possession. It will not be binding on the cosharer who is not party to the proceedings or the sale deeds.