Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- The petitioner has assailed validity of order dated 15.05.2013 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.7 filed an application for partition of land measuring 32 Kanals 07 Marlas, falling in the revenue estate of village Fazilpur Jharsa, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Gurgaon. Respondent no.6 was proceeded against ex-parte on 12.12.2007 and the mode of partition was confirmed on 13.01.2008 after rejecting the objections of respondent no.6. Naksha Be was prepared on 22.01.2008 and ‘Sanad Taqsim’ was issued on 29.01.2008. The appeal preferred by respondent no.6 was dismissed by the Collector on 14.03.2011 on the ground that since the entire land has been acquired, therefore, there was no justification in continuing with the partition and revision filed before the Divisional Commissioner was also dismissed on 04.05.2011. It is pertinent to mention that respondent no.6 also filed a Civil Suit but it was later on withdrawn.

3. The case set up by respondent no.6 was that the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade has acted illegally in not effecting personal service upon him in terms of Section 20 of the Act and proceeded against him ex-parte on the basis of proclamation (Mustri Munadi). It is also his case that though the Financial Commissioner, vide her order dated 21.09.2011, stayed alienation of the land in dispute till the finalization of the proceedings pending before her, yet respondent no.7 sold the land in dispute to the petitioner herein.

4. The Financial Commissioner framed following 3 questions while deciding the revision petition:-

“1. Whether the provisions of Section 20 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 has been complied with by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Gurgaon?

2. Whether order dated 13.01.2008, 22.01.2008 and 29.01.2008 passed by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Gurgaon are in conformity with the provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887?

3. Whether orders dated 04.05.2011 and 14.03.2011 passed by Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Gurgaon respectively, are in accordance with law?”

5. As regards the first question, it has been categorically held that there has been no personal service upon respondent no.6, which is in violation of Section 20 of the Act. In respect of second question, it has been held that the order for proclamation was issued on 13.12.2007 to appear on 17.12.2007. The proclamation was done on 15.12.2007. The Naksha Be was sanctioned on 22.01.2008, Naksha Jeem on 25.01.2008 and it has been strongly observed that the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade was not familiar with the rudimentary revenue law because Sanad Taqsim was issued on 29.01.2008, whereas statutory period of 30 days of filing appeal was required after approval of final partition before issuance of Sanad Taqsim. As regards the third issue, it has been observed that on the one hand it is mentioned in the concluding para that as the entire land has been acquired, so there is no justification in partition and on the other hand the appeal against the same has been dismissed. In case the entire land is acquired, the sanctioning of partition should have been set aside. It has also been observed that as per award no.60 for the year 2009-10, land bearing Khasra No.55/2/2, 55/3/1, measuring 08 Kanals 02 Marlas has not been acquired.

6. Consequently, orders of the Courts below were set aside by the Financial Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, was directed to take corrective measures and initiate disciplinary proceedings for major penalty under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 against the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Gurgaon, for the illegalities and infirmities committed by him. The Financial Commissioner also soug