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 amended provisions of Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.

JUDGMENT

Sudhir Mittal, J. - Susceptibility to avarice is one of the greatest shortcomings in human beings. Even holy people and saints fall prey to it. Eradication of this evil appears to be impossible. The law can only deal with it by discouraging acts which are the outcome of greed.

2. Three persons of village Dulina, Tehsil & District Jhajjar filed an application for partition of joint land in all measuring 4250 kanals 19 marlas. The same was rejected vide order dated 10.02.2014 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar on the ground of non-mentioning of names of owners of land forming part of Drain No.8 in the relevant jamabandi. This order was challenged before the Collector by the persons who had filed the partition application, who allowed the appeal filed by them vide order dated 12.12.2017 with a direction that the land through which Drain No.8 was flowing be excluded from the partition. Thereafter, the partition was concluded and sanad dated 05.11.2019 was issued. The same was challenged by the petitioner and two other persons namely Rajesh and Rakesh sons of Nar Singh by way of an appeal filed before the Collector, Jhajjar. This appeal was dismissed as being not maintainable. Thus, a revision was filed before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and status quo was ordered vide order dated 08.02.2021. Order of status quo was continued vide order dated 08.03.2021 resulting in challenge to the said orders by respondent No.5 by way of a revision petition filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as applicable to Haryana. The Financial Commissioner stayed the proceedings pending before the Commissioner and finally allowed the revision petition vide order dated 01.06.2022. The revision pending before the Commissioner was dismissed. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. It may also be noticed that before the Collector, aforementioned Rajesh and Rakesh tendered affidavits stating that they do not wish to continue with their appeal and the petitioner submitted an application that he has no objection to sale/purchase of land. This application is in fact an unattested affidavit of the petitioner and is on record as Annexure R-2 with the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.5. After dismissal of the appeal, respondent No.5 purchased a total of about 80 acres of land from different co-sharers through different sale deeds for setting up a logistic park.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after amendment of Section 16 of the Act as applicable to Haryana, vide Act No.12 of 2017 notified on 10.04.2017, the Financial Commissioner has been divested of revisional jurisdiction and thus, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Only the Commissioner has jurisdiction in the matter after a sanad has been issued and thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. It has also been argued that Drain No.8 having not been excluded from partition, the partition proceedings are illegal. The land under the said drain had been acquired by the State of Haryana long before the partition application was filed and the same was not partible. On this ground also, the sanad deserved to be set aside.

5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has argued that the filing of the revision petition was an act of blackmail because Rajesh and Rakesh had already sworn affidavits before the Collector that they do not wish to continue with the appeal and yet, they filed the revision petition. The petitioner had filed an affidavit stating that he had no objection to sale/purchase of the land but in effect meaning that the co-sharers who had been allotted land as per the sanad were free to sell the same which in turn meant that he had no objection to the sanad, yet, the revision petition was filed. Such acts of blackmail cannot be condoned. Respondent No.5 purchased land after being assured that there was no challenge to the partition for