ASHOK KUMAR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dtd. 18/12/2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Collector, Sub-Division, Narnaul, vide which ex-parte proceedings initiated against the respondents were set aside even after Sanad Takseem had taken place and even the possession has been handed over on 29/5/2009 and the order dtd. 12/9/2012 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, upholding the order passed by the Collector and remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector Grade-I, Narnaul for fresh decision on merits vide order dtd. 12/9/2012 (Annexure P-8).

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the partition application had been filed by Smt. Meer Puri and Smt. Champa, the petitioner purchased some land from one of the co-sharers. Petitioner was impleaded as a party to the partition proceedings. Parties were duly served but the private respondents preferred not to appear before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul resulting in passing of the order of mode of partition followed by further proceedings to the extent of finalization of the Sanad Takseem with the handing over of the possession on 29/5/2009. He contends that an appeal has been preferred by the private respondents before the Collector, Narnaul on the plea that they have been wrongly proceeded against ex-parte, the Collector, Narnaul, vide order dtd. 18/12/2009 (Annexure P-6), set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Narnaul, whereby the private respondents were proceeded against ex-parte, and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul for fresh decision on hearing the parties. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, who set aside the order dtd. 18/12/2009 (Annexure P- 6) passed by the Collector, Narnaul, vide order dtd. 29/7/2011 (Annexure P-7), against which revision preferred by the private respondents was allowed vide order dtd. 12/9/2012 (Annexure P-8) upholding the order passed by the Collector.

(3.) It has been asserted by the counsel for the petitioner that the civil suit was preferred by the private respondents challenging the partition proceedings. The civil suit was filed on 11/6/2009, which was finally withdrawn on 30/10/2012. He, on the basis of the above, asserts that once the parties have been duly served, there was no question of setting aside an order passed by the authorities especially when the partition proceedings have attained finality and even the possession has been handed over. He, thus, contends that the impugned orders cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.