DAYA NAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned orders dated 12.07.2013 (Annexures P-18 & P-19), whereby the revision petition filed by the private respondent(s) under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 has been accepted by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana/respondent No. 1 and the matter has been ordered to be reopened by remanding back it to the Assistant Collector Grade-I.

(2.) Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has moved an application seeking partition of the land and the mode of partition was suggested on 19.04.2004. There was no objection to the same and on 04.11.2004, Naksha Be was prepared. The contesting respondent No. 1 filed the objection against the Naksha Be, which was dismissed on 03.03.2005 and on 18.07.2005, Naksha zeem was prepared. The appeal against the order dated 03.03.2005 was dismissed on 06.04.2007. Sanad taksim resultantly was prepared on 05.06.2007. The possession of the basis of the aforementioned sanad taksim was delivered to the respective parties as per their respective possession way back on 29.06.2011. However, there was typographical error in the sanad taksim regarding Killa & Rectangle numbers. Accordingly, an application for correction of the same was moved. The Assistant Collector advised the petitioner to approach the Collector and the Collector vide order dated 03.01.2012 ordered for the correction. However, in the meantime, the private respondent(s) filed a civil suit challenging the order of the correction and the interim order granted therein i.e. status quo was vacated on 11.05.201 Taking the advantage of the aforementioned proceedings again raked up the matter by filing a petition under under Section 16 ibid, resulting into, passing of the impugned order.

(3.) He further submits that once the matter had already been attained the finality, much less, sanad taksim having been implemented and executed, the parties could not have raised the objections as no cogent reasons has been assigned or taking a note of by the Financial Commissioner for remanding the matter back by holding the partition proceedings as de novo, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the impugned order, under challenge.