PARAMVIR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order dtd. 24/2/2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Class, Mahendragarh, District 1. Mahendragarh, vide which naksha bey has been confirmed, order dtd. 31/10/2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, whereby the appeal preferred by the private contesting respondents 5 to 9 was accepted setting aside the order dtd. 18/9/2006 (Annexure P-2) and order dtd. 4/7/2018 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that vide the impugned orders, the revenue authorities have failed to appreciate that the objections which have been filed by the petitioners were based upon the factual position as existed at the site. The land which was being sought to be partitioned fell in three different villages and, therefore, three different khewats. The co-sharers were common and the petitioners have spent a lot of money and energy in making the land in Village Surehati Jakhar which was in their possession prior to the partition proceedings having been initiated. Without taking the said aspect into consideration, the authorities vide these impugned orders have stated that since the land falls in different khewats, they cannot be clubbed together as the parties had not agreed to the same. He, thus, contends that since the petitioners have invested in the land which was in their possession, the possession should not have been disturbed. That apart, he contends that the impugned orders being not in consonance with the provisions of the Revenue Act cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.

(3.) I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance, have gone through the records of the case.