The Financial Commissioner has wide powers to interfere with the orders of Revenue officers under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, and can go into questions of fact and form an opinion on facts.

V.K.Jhanji and Iqbal Singh JJ.

1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to order dated 24-5-1994 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby he has set aside order dated 13-12-1991 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, and restored the order dated 29-11-1990 of Collector, Dadri, remanding the case to the Assistant Collector II Grade for drawing up Naksha-Be afresh.

2. In brief, the facts are that respondents 3 and 4, namely, Smt. Shanti and Geeta Devi, widow and daughter respectively of Ram Kumar, filed an application for partition before the Assistant Collector II Grade. Petitioner and his brother namely, Ish-war, filed written statement to the same in which they stated that they are in cultivating possession of their share according to the mutual partition and in the alternative, they submitted that in case the court comes to the conclusion that partition is necessary, then the partition be effected in accordance with the possession of the parties as the petitioner and his brother had made the land cultivable by their hard labour and by spending money. Vide order dated 16-6-1989, the Assistant Collector sanctioned the mode of partition. The criteria according to which the land between the share-holders had to be partitioned was as follows :-

"(a) Two kurhas be made, one of the applicant and other of respondents;

(b) possession and nature of land be considered;

(c) path-way be left mushtarqa;

(d) trees be kept intact;

(e) 2 marlas less or more will not be considered;

(f) khatoni be partitioned at the spot and nishan dehi be given."

On the basis of mode of partition, the Assistant Collector directed the Field Staff to prepare Naqsha-Be. On receipt of Naqsha-Be on 27-7-1989, the case was adjourned to 31-7-1989 for filing objections. On 31-7-1989, respondents 3 and 4 took more time to file objections and the case was adjourned to 16-8-1989. On 16-8-1989, on failure of respondents 3 and 4 to file objections, the Assistant Collector passed an order confirming Naqsha-Be. Respondents 3 and 4 filed an appeal before the Collector who vide order dated 29-11-1990 accepted the appeal on finding that the land given to respondents 3 and 4 is Barani, whereas the land given to the Petitioner and his brother is Nehri, which is against the mode of partition. He consequently remanded the case to the Assistant Collector II grade for preparing Naqsha-Be in accordance with the mode of partition. Petitioner having felt aggrieved against the order of the Collector filed an appeal before the commissioner who vide order dated 13-12-1991 accepted the appeal solely on the ground that respondents 3 and 4 who did not file any objections to Naqsha-Be had no right to raise objections before the court of Collector. In revision filed by respondents 3 and 4, Financial Commissioner has set aside the order Of the Commissioner, restoring the order of the Commissioner, against which the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that if respondents 3 and 4 were not satisfied with the partition of the land as proposed by the Field Staff, they should have raised objections before the Assistant Collector. By not filing objections, they accepted the final partition and therefore, had no right to file an appeal. In support of his contention, he relied upon judgment of this court in Sohan Lal v. Financial Commissioner and Ors., 1993 P.L.J. 796. Counsel also contended that even if the order of the Commissioner was bad in law, the Financial Commissioner was not justified in interfering with the same in revisional jurisdiction. In support of this, he cited a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Dhaunkal v. Man Kauri and another, (1970)72 P.L.R. 882 (F.B.). In answer to these submissions, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 has. contended that final partition was against the mode of partition and therefore, the Financial Commissioner rightly interfered