IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Asha Chauhan & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-21348-2021 (O&M) and CWP-1849-2023
Decided On : 20-04-2023
Sanad Taksim - Partition Proceedings - Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, Section 16 - Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887, Section 16
Fact of the Case:
The case involves two writ petitions arising from the same partition proceedings. The petitioner challenged the orders related to partition and Sanad Taksim before the Commissioner, Gurugram. The court observed that the challenge had failed and the petitioner was directed to approach the Collector as per Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. However, it was jointly submitted that the appropriate authority for revision after the issuance of Sanad Taksim would be the Commissioner, as per the provisions of Section 16 of the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887.
Finding of the Court:
The court partly allowed the civil writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, remanding the case for fresh decision on merits. The interim order for the petitioner's dispossession to remain stayed was continued, and the petitioner was granted liberty to seek extension of the stay order before the Commissioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appropriate authority for revision after the issuance of Sanad Taksim and the interpretation of Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power of revision of the Financial Commissioner was withdrawn from the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887, and thus, the power had to be exercised by the Commissioner. The court also emphasized that the grant of interim order should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner to withdraw one of the writ petitions with liberty to file a revision petition before the Commissioner, and directed the Commissioner to consider and decide the revision petition independently and expeditiously.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - This order will dispose of two writ petitions i.e., CWP-21348- 2021 filed by Asha Chauhan and CWP-1849-2023 filed by Kaushalya Chaudhary. Both the cases arises from the same partition proceedings and with the consent of all the parties, the facts are being taken from CWP-21348-2021.
2. Petitioner Asha Chauhan had filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Gurugram challenging the orders dated 10.07.2020, 14.08.2020 and also Sanad Taksim dated 04.06.2021. The Commissioner had observed that the said orders were passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade and accordingly had permitted the petitioners to challenge the said orders before the Collector and had not entertained the revision. On 14.10.2021, a coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following order:-
'The petitioner had challenged the final order of partition dated 04.06.2021 (Annexure P-2) before the concerned Commissioner, however, the challenge has failed. The petitioner has been relegated to the remedy of approaching the Collector in the first instance upon mis-reading of Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (as applicable to the Haryana State).
It is submitted that no remedy is available before the Collector. Sanad can only be challenged by way of revision before the Commissioner.
Notice of motion for 24.01.2022.
Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 3 and waives service.
Remaining respondents be served in ordinary manner.
Meanwhile, dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed.
(SUDHIR MITTAL)
JUDGE
14.10.2021"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and the State have jointly submitted that since, in the present case the partition proceeding had been initiated after the year 2017 i.e., on 06.11.2018, thus, it would be the Commissioner which would be the appropriate authority before whom a revision can be filed after the issuance of Sanad Taksim. It is further jointly submitted that the provisions of Section 16 of the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (in short 'the Act') governing revisional power of the Commissioner are similar to the revisional power of the Financial Commissioner under Section 16 of the Act prior to the amendment. It is further jointly stated that after passing of the Sanad Taksim it was initially held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court that on account of the revenue authorities being functus officio, only a writ petition would be maintainable. Subsequently, in various judgments it was observed that the Financial Commissioner would have the power to entertain a revision petition after the issuance of Sanad Taksim. As far as the State of Haryana is concerned, an amendment was made in Section 16 of the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 which was notified on 10.04.2017 by virtue of which the revisional jurisdiction was withdrawn from the Financial Commissioner. Since the power of revision of the Financial Commissioner was in similar terms with the power of the Commissioner, therefore, once the revisional power has been withdrawn from the Financial Commissioner, the said power has, even as per the stand of the State, to be exercised by the Commissioner. The Collector in the said circumstances, would not have the power to entertain a revision petition after the Sanad Taksim has been issued. It is jointly prayed that the impugned order dated 15.09.2021 be set aside and the Commissioner, Gurugram Division be directed to consider and decide the revision petition afresh on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions have submitted that in CWP-21348-2021, a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.10.2021 had granted interim order in favour of the petitioner to the effect that dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed and pray that the said interim order may be continued till 03.05.2023 and further prayer has been made that the petitioners be granted liberty to seek extens
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887, regarding the autho....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner and the Commissioner in revising partition orders under the un-amended and ame....
Partition of land - Power to call for, examine and revise proceedings of Revenue Officers - In exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner, he cannot modify or reverse orders of his subor....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.