PHUL CHAND Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the impugned order dated 20th July, 1979, passed by respondent No. 1.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the petitioner as well as Jagta, Bhura and Bhalla Ram, respondent Nos. 2 to 4, are joint owner of the land in dispute. Gaili father of respondent No. 2 Jagta along with Bhura and Bhalla Ram respondents filed an application under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for partitioning of their joint land holdings against Phul Chand petitioner. The petitioner contested these proceedings and ultimately the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 29th May, 1969, remanded the case to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Hansi, for fresh decision. The learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hansi, on 16th June, 1972, drafted a scheme for the mode of partition. On 17th August, 1972, the respective counsel for both the parties made a statement to honour the decision of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade without raising any objection. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector certified the order of the partition on 27th October, 1972. Aggrieved against the same, aforesaid Gaili and others went in appeal before the Collector, Hansi, which was dismissed. Thereafter, they went in revision before the Commissioner, Hissar Division, who recommended the case on 5th May, 1976, to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, for acceptance of the revision petition vide his order, Annexure P-3. Ultimately, the recommendations of the Commissioner were accepted on 20th July, 1979 by the Financial Commissioner and the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade with the direction that the partition of the land be made afresh in accordance with the recommendations made by the Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, Phul Chand, petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing this petition, on the ground that the order of partition being based on the consent of the parties, could not be set aside on the revisional side. It was further urged that Phul Chand petitioner had improved the land in his possession by installing a tubewell thereon at huge expense.

(3.) Respondent No. 2 in the return had supported the above referred orders of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner on the ground that the Assistant Collector had partitioned the property against the proposed mode of partition.