The main legal point established in the judgment is that the restoration of the application for partition and the subsequent proceedings must adhere to the prescribed procedures under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, including proper service to all respondents and the opportunity to file objections.

Paramjeet Singh, J.

Instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.07.1993 (Annexure P-1) passed by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Tosham, order dated 18.08.1993 (Annexure P-2) passed by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Tosham, order dated 06.04.1994 (Annexure P-3) passed by Collector, Sub Division, Tosham, order dated 26.08.1994 (Annexure P-4) passed by Commissioner, Hisar Division, Camp Bhiwani, and order dated 13.02.1995 (Annexure P-6) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.04.1992 respondent No. 5 - Amar Singh filed an application for partition of land. The case was adjourned to 21.12.1992 and direction was issued to respondent No. 5, who was original applicant before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, to furnish registered letter and correct addresses of the unserved respondents. However, the order was not complied with and the application was dismissed in default on 21.12.1992. On 01.01.1993 respondent No. 5 moved an application before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade for restoration of the application for partition. Notice in the application for restoration was issued for 05.05.1993. Thereafter upto 03.07.1993 no date was given in the case. Ultimately, on the statement of one Sukhdei d/o Banwari Lal, without effecting service upon other respondents, application for restoration of application for partition was allowed vide order dated 08.07.1993 (Annexure P-1) and other respondents were proceeded against ex parte. Petitioner filed an application dated 18.08.1993 for setting aside the order whereby application for partition was allowed, however, the same was dismissed on the same date by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade vide Annexure P-2) and 'nakhsa khe' was called. Against the order of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.04.1994 (Annexure P-3). Against the orders of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade and the Collector, petitioner filed revision petition before the Commissioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.08.1994 (Annexure P-4). Petitioner further preferred revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 13.02.1995 (Annexure P-6). Hence, this writ petition.

3. In pursuance of notice of motion, respondents No. 1 to 5 have filed their written statements. In the reply filed by respondent No. 5 it is averred that final partition of the land has already been effected on 30.08.1994. However, in the written statements it has not been mentioned that on the date fixed, petitioner and other respondents in the application for partition were served properly.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that once the original application for partition of land was dismissed in default and the application for restoration of the application for partition was filed, even for the purpose of restoration service upon other respondents was required to be effected. However, only on the statement of one Sukhdei, respondent No. 2 in the application, application for partition was restored and other respondents were proceeded against ex parte. Such an order of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade is null and void and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner and others were proceeded against ex parte on 08.07.1993. When petitioner came to know about the ex parte proceedings then on 18.08.1993 i.e. about 1 1/2 months after the order of restoration of the application, petitioner moved application for setting aside the order of ex parte, however, the same was dismissed illegally and contrary to the settled law.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 contended that partition has already been effected