KIRAN SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER, ROHTAK DIVISIION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of issuance of a mandamus/direction to respondent No. 1 to decide their revision bearing ER No. 5 titled as "Ajmer Singh and others v. Faggu Ram and others" pending before him since 5.10.2012 in which notice was issued on 18.10.2012.

(2.) In brief, the petitioners filed an application under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (as applicable to Haryana) seeking partition of land measuring 93 kanals 15 marlas situated in village Fajalpur, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal. The application was filed on 1.7.2003. Mode of partition was proposed on 4.4.2007 and accepted on 9.5.2007. The Kanango, thereafter inspected the spot and submitted his report dated 29.2008 regarding Naksha Bey. The respondents filed objections to the preparation of Naksha Bey, which was dismissed by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Indri vide its order dated 20.3.2009. The said order was challenged by the respondents in appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (C)-cum-Collector, Indri. The appeal was dismissed on 13.11.2009. The respondents then filed revision before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, the revision was partly accepted on 5.8.2011 and the case was remanded back to the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade with a direction to decide the same within three months. Thereafter the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade again decided the objections against Naksha Bay on 15.2012 against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents. Now it was the turn of the petitioners to challenge the order dated 15.2012 by way of appeal before the Collector, which was accepted on 25.9.201 The order of the Collector was challenged by the respondents by way of revision bearing ER No. 5 of 201

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the zimini orders, having been passed by respondent No. 1/Commissioner from 8.2.2013 to 21.7.2017. It is submitted that now the case is fixed for 28.09.2017 for summoning of respondent No. 1(d). It is further submitted that the grievance of the petitioners is that though the partition proceedings were initiated by them as far back on 1.2.2007 yet it is not making any headway inasmuch as they are still struck up at the stage of decision of objections regarding Naksha Bey. Another grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No. 1 is not deciding the revision petition as most of zimini orders passed by him reflects that he had adjourned the case because of the reason that he was busy in administrative work. It is also submitted that four years have now been passed while the matter is pending before respondent No. 1 and the petitioners could not wait any further for respondent No. 1 to discharge his judicial function and thus have approached this Court by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.