RISAL SINGH Vs. TARA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the order of Commissioner Rohtak dated 30.5.1993 vide which the Commissioner had recorded the mutual consent of both the parties and after calling for the record the same day, finalised the amended Naksha 'Be' at his own level within seven days. Earlier, Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rohtak vide his order dated 2.2.1994 had finalised the mode of partition and called for Naksha 'Be' on 8.2.1994. Appeal against this order was dismissed by the Collector, Rohtak on 12.4.1994.

(2.) THE petitioner's counsel stated that the compromise recorded in the orders by the Commissioner was never entered into between the parties and the Commissioner has not cared even to reduce in writing the statements of the parties to that effect. The action taken by the Commissioner in getting Naksha 'Be' prepared himself, approving it and ordering the preparing of Sanad Taqseem on that basis as also delivery of possession of the parties was most unusual step whereas the matter before him was only with regard to mode of partition finalised by the Assistant Collector. Referring to Section 16(3) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, it was stated that if the Commissioner was of the view that the order deserved to be reversed in revision, he was required to report the case with his opinion for the orders of the Financial Commissioner. He cannot modify the orders himself.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , I set aside the order dated 30.5.1995 passed by the Commissioner. I also find that the Collector vide his order dated 12.4.1994 had rightly rejected the appeal against the orders of Assistant Collector Ist Grade dated 2.2.1994 approving the mode of partition and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade is directed to take further action on the partition case accordingly. Announced. Petition accepted.