DILA RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailed in this writ petition is the order dated 1.3.2005 passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) vide which he had set aside the order of remand passed by Commissioner Rohtak Division, Rohtak dated 18.9.2003 (Annexure P-5).

(2.) The necessary facts required for disposal of this writ petition are that respondent No.2 Indraj filed a partition application under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 amended up to date (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for partition of the land measuring 63 kanals 5 marlas before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Indri, which was replied to by the petitioner along with respondent Nos.3 to 6. After rejecting the objections filed by respondent Nos.3 to 6, the Assistant Collector II Grade, Indri, ordered to call for amended mode of partition on 28.3.2001 vide order Annexure P-3. Thereafter mode of partition (Annexure P-4) was approved and Revenue Officer was called for preparing naksha 'Bay'. The order of the Assistant Collector was challenged in appeal before the Collector, Karnal, who dismissed the same. The said order was challenged in revision before the learned Commissioner Rohtak Division, Rohtak, who vide order dated 18.3.2001, set aside the orders of Assistant Collector and the Collector directed the Assistant Collector to inspect the spot and again prepare the mode of partition after considering the objections and hearing both the parties. The said order passed by the Commissioner dated 18.9.2003 was challenged before the Financial Commissioner who vide his order dated 1.3.2005 set aside the order of remand while observing that the land was equally given to both the parties, according to the nature of lands and that all share-holders are entitled to their share to the valuable land even if it is involved in disturbing the existing possession of co-sharers and there was absolutely no need for the Commissioner to remand the case to the Assistant Collector IInd Grade in view of the fact that the Collector has already taken into consideration all the relevant factors of the case. The petitioner has now challenged the order of remand on the ground that the same has not caused any prejudice to any one at all and, therefore, the same could not be set aside. If the appellate Court does not decide the case on merits and only remits it back for re-decision then the said order cannot be said to be bad.

(3.) Respondent No.2, in his reply has submitted that his application for partition has been pending since the year 2000. Assistant Collector IInd Grade passed the order Annexure P-3 on 28.3.2001, when the amended mode of partition has been prepared and Naksha 'Bay' was to be presented. The Commissioner had set aside the order without recording the reasons. The land has been equally divided as per its quality and the writ petition is nothing but to delay the partition proceedings.