Mr. Amit Rawal, J. (Oral):- Notice of motion.

2. On asking of the Court, Mr. Rajbir Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in partition proceedings, the objections with regard to preparation of naksha Bey were filed which were rejected on 29.07.2010 ordering for preparation of naksha. The order reads as under:-

“Today the file put up. The counsel for the parties are present. The objection received on the Naksha Bey are being rejected and the naksha bey is being confirmed. Now the file be put up on 05.08.10 for Naksha Zeem.”

4. The aforementioned order was assailed by filing an appeal before the Collector, who vide order dated 22.04.2013, dismissed the same and relegated the parties for further proceedings. However, when the matter was being taken up in revision before the Commissioner, the Commissioner, vide order dated 22.05.2015 (Annexure P-7), accepted the revision petition, set aside the order and remanded back the matter. The other aggrieved party challenged the same by filing ROR bearing No.571/2014-15 before the Financial Commissioner. The order of the Assistant Collector extracted above has been found to be correct in view of the finding dated 22.04.2013. rendered by the Collector.

5. Mr. Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the Financial Commissioner in paragraph 7 of the order dated 06.09.2016 rendered a finding that amended ‘naksha Bey’ was approved by AC 2nd Grade Dhand in its order dated 29.07.2010 strictly in compliance of the orders dated 18.07.2007 and 27.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and Collector Kaithal, respectively. As per the aforementioned orders, the petitioner could not have filed the objections.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, appraised the paper book, gone through the order and of the view that the order dated 29.07.2010 extracted above even does not deal with any of the objections (Annexure P-3). The objections read as under:-

“Amar Singh etc. vs. Isham Singh etc.

Objections on the prepared amended Naksha Bey

Sir,

The respondent no.6 submits the following objections:-

1. That the abovesaid partition application is pending for today for filing of objection on Naksha Bey.

2. That the prepared amended Naksha Bey is not as per the rules of mode of partition. In this the possession of land, quality of land and the land has not been given as per the share of all the three parties. Although it has to be given in all the three takks. In the tukk of adjoining to the village the excess land more than share has been given to the applicants and this land is also not in their possession on the spot. The land adjoin to the village is very costly. In this way the field kanongo has provided the benefit to the applicants. Which is totally wrong.

3. That in the clause no.2 of the mode of partition it is clearly written that the separate kurras of applicants and respondents be carved out. But the separate kurra of the respondents has not been prepared. The respondent no.6 also got recorded clearly in his statement that the separate kurrs of the respondents be carved out.

So you are requested that keeping in view the abovesaid objection that the fresh naksha bey be called after rejecting the present amended naksha bey. In which the separate kurrs of the respondents be carved out while keeping in view the above objections, in the interest of justice.

Verification: Respondent no.6.

It is certified that the above

Bhartu son of Norang statement is correct as per

r/o village Badrana Sub my knowledge and belief.

Tehsil Dhand, Distt. Kaithal.”

7. Having not adverted to the aforementioned objections, the order dated 29.07.2010 cannot be said to be speaking one. The finding rendered by the Financial Commissioner by accepting the revision petition, vide order dated 22.05.2015 reads as under:-

“5. I have heard