DALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court impugning the order dtd. 10/9/2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby the order dtd. 5/6/2014 (Annexure P-2) and order dtd. 23/11/2017 (Annexure P-4), whereby the sanad taksim and the warrants of possession were issued by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rajound, have been set aside.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Financial Commissioner has proceeded to entertain the revision petition of respondent No. 5 despite coming to a conclusion that he has not been able to prove that he was a minor at the time when the impugned order dtd. 5/6/2014 was passed. His submission is that there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the said respondent in filing the revision petition which could not have been entertained as the delay has not been condoned by the Financial Commissioner while proceeding to pass the order dtd. 10/9/2018. Assertion has also been made that the petitioners have rightly mentioned in the partition application that Shri Sahi Pal, father of respondent No. 5-Pankaj, has died and they have also impleaded his legal heirs namely Smt. Kushum Lata widow of Shri Sahi Pal and Pankaj son of Shri Sahi Pal-respondents 4 and 5 in the said application. It is because of the fault of the office of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade that the summons were issued in the name of Sahi Pal, for which the petitioners cannot be held liable and they should not suffer. Counsel further contends that the partition proceedings having attained finality, should not have been interfered with by the Financial Commissioner in the impugned order. Prayer has, thus, been made for setting aside the order dtd. 10/9/2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

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