PURAN SINGH @ SAMPURAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT Nos. 5 to 8 filed application for partition of a land mentioned in the writ petition. The petitioner appeared in response to notice and filed written statement. He, however, could not bring out certain relevant facts in the reply so filed. He accordingly moved an application seeking permission to file amended written statement. Notice of this application was issued to the respondents. The application seeking amendment, however, was dismissed on 2.12.2003. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same, which was dismissed by Collector on 8.7.2004. The revision filed against the said order was also dismissed on 2.6.2005 and so was the fate of the petition filed by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner. In fact, the petition filed before the Financial Commissioner has been dismissed on the ground that it has become infructuous without going into the merits.

(2.) ASSISTANT Collector Ist Grade, Rajpura, rejected the application by simply observing that at that stage written statement can not be amended. This in fact was no valid reason to decline the prayer for amendment of the writ petition. The appeal filed before the Collector was dismissed on the ground that there was no provision in the Punjab Land Revenue Act to amend the written statement. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The Commissioner also up-held the order, saying that the petitioner has not been able to give satisfactory explanation for the discrepancies mentioned by the Collector in his order. The Financial Commissioner did not go into the merits of the controversy and dismiss the petition filed before him only on the ground that instrument of partition (Sanad Takseem) was issued by the Collector and so the revision petition had become infructuous.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.