The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, specifically regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court, the nature of the suit property, and the applicability of land revenue.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the first respondent in RSA No. 463 of 2013. The High Court by the impugned judgment has allowed the said appeal and dismissed Civil Suit No. 774 of 2003 filed by the appellant.

3. It would appear that the parties are joint owners of 52 kanal 4 marla of land. A suit was instituted by the appellant in respect of 10 kanal and 14 marla. He also instituted separate petition purporting to be under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') in respect of 41 kanal and 10 marla of land. The proceedings came to be contested. The Assistant Collector before whom the petition in respect of agricultural land was filed decreed the revenue suit by its order dated 17.12.2003 and listed the matter for further proceedings.

The Collector dismissed the revision by the first respondent by order dated 29.07.2005.

The Commissioner, Gurgaon, however, by order dated 24.07.2008 allowed the further revision. The appellant, thereupon, challenged the proceedings before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

4. The trial Court decreed the present Suit in respect of 10 Kanal 14 marla by decree dated 14.05.2009. First appeal was carried by the first respondent before the first Appellate Court.

The Financial Commissioner by order dated 07.04.2010 restored the order of the Assistant Collector relating to partition of agricultural land measuring 41 Kanal 10 marla.

On 31.08.2012, the Additional District Judge dismissed the First Appeal filed by the first respondent. The first respondent carried the matter in the Regular Second Appeal.

It is in the said Second Regular Appeal, the High Court, by the impugned judgment, allowed the same as noted and the suit came to be dismissed.

FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT

5. The High Court found merit in the contention of the first respondent. It is found that the present suit is bad for partial partition. It is next found in regard to the attempt made by pleading that the land was subjected to land revenue that even applicability of land revenue in the State of Haryana has been repealed long time back. Thereafter, the Court finds that the appellant should have availed the remedy of seeking seeking partition of the entire land in one suit and he was not prevented to do so in law. Thereafter, finding shelter in judgment of this Court in Pankajakshi (dead) through LRs and others v. Chandrika and others AIR 2016 SC 1213, the Court proceeded to allow the appeal.

6. We have heard Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Sanchar Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this is a case where though the land may be estate within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Act having regard to the findings of the High Court which we have just adverted to viz., that the land revenue has been abolished for the State of Haryana and having regard to the concurrent findings rendered by the two Courts, which held that in the land in question (10 Kanal 14 marla), there are buildings which occupied nearly 8 canals, these findings of fact have been wrongly interfered with. In fact, he would submit that on the reasoning employed by the High Court and the judgment of the coordinate Bench referred to by the learned Single Judge, result should have been in favour of the appellant The appellant rightly maintained the suit before the civil Court, the land having been transformed from whatever it may have been in the beginning. He would also submit that the order of the Financial Commissioner in respect of the property which was agricultural land has become final.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would point out that the proceedings in the Financial Court regarding agricultural land has not become final. He points out that there are four stages; while it may have attained finality in regard to the first stage, it cannot preclude the rights of the first respond