CHHOTU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 19.07.2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar-respondent No.2, has been dismissed, order dated 31.01.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by the District Revenue Officer, Sirsa, exercising the powers of Collector, Sirsa- respondent No.3, order dated 26.07.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nathusari Chopta, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa-respondent No.4, whereby in the partition application, further amendments have been carried out to the mode of partition vide order dated 22.03.2012.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that on an application, which was moved for partition initially, a mode of partition was decided on 05.08.2010 by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nathusari Chopta. On an application submitted by some of the co-sharers, ex parte proceedings initiated against them, were set aside on 06.12.2011. In the said order, whereby the ex parte proceedings were initiated, only limited prayer was 1 of 4 accepted to the extent of filing objections to naksha bey vide order dated 07.10.2010, against which respondents 45 to 52 in the partition application, filed an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Sirsa, on 10.11.2010, whereby the said appeal was allowed on 06.12.2011 directing the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nathusari Chopta, to decide the matter afresh by giving opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence. Thereafter the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Nathusari Chopta, issued amended mode of partition on 22.03.2012. On objections submitted by respondents 45 to 52 in the partition proceedings, Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Nathusari Chopta, vide order dated 26.07.2012 further amended condition No.2 of the amended mode of partition, whereby it was incorporated that the earlier condition No.2, whereby the possession of the land has to be maintained of the co-sharers, now the quality of the land was also to be taken into consideration while finally partitioning the land. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2012 regarding the amendment in condition No.2, the present petitioners and some other respondents i.e. 58 to 63 in the partition application, preferred an appeal before the District Revenue Officer-cum-Collector, Sirsa, which appeal was dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2013 resulting in filing of the revision petition before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, which also has been dismissed on 19.07.2016 leading to the filing of the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, who had dismissed the same being devoid of merit vide order dated 09.10.2018. These are the orders which have been challenged by the petitioners starting from the order dated 22.03.2012 passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Nathusari Chopta, followed by the subsequent orders passed by the 2 of 4 authorities.

(3.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that on two occasions, the mode of partition has been amended initially and thereafter condition No.2 of the 2nd mode of partition has again been amended by incorporating the nature of the land and quality thereof which is contrary to the position with regard to the possession of the land to be maintained. With this condition, there is every likelihood of the possession being disturbed of the co-sharers and, therefore, once the mode of partition has been settled between the parties, amendment thereto cannot be permitted. His assertion is that the petitioners would be satisfied if the mode of partition is now decided afresh by carrying out the site inspection in the presence of the parties.