The main legal point established is that the service of summons in partition proceedings must comply with the law, and the Financial Commissioner has the power to review the legality of orders passed by revenue officers.

VIKAS BAHL, J.

This order shall dispose of the above-said two writ petitions as the challenge in both the petitions is to the common order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh, vide which the revision petitions filed by respondent No.2 Chand Singh have been allowed and the matter has been remanded back to the A.C. 1st Grade, Ferozepur for a fresh decision.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Babu Singh, father of the petitioner, had filed two applications under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short 'the Act') for partition. The first application bearing No.70-AC-1 was instituted on 15.03.2004 and was with respect to land measuring 67 kanals and 4 marlas situated in village Talwandi Bhai, Tehsil and District Ferozepur. The second application bearing case No.71-AC-1 was instituted on the same date i.e. 15.03.2004 and was with respect to partition of land measuring 51 kanals and 13 marals, situated in village Talwandi Bhai, Tehsil and District Ferozepur. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Ferozepur after proceeding against the private respondents ex-parte, sanctioned the Naqsha “Eri”, vide order dated 12.01.2006 (Annexure P-1). Both the said applications were decided by a common order. Respondent No.2 Chand Singh filed two appeals i.e. Appeal No.45-AP of 2008 and Appeal No.46-AP of 2008 before the Collector, Ferozepur. The plea taken in the Court of appeal by said Chand Singh was that he was not aware of the proceedings and it was only on 03.12.2008, when said Chand Singh made certain inquiries, that he learnt about the said proceedings and thereafter, he applied for certified copy of the order, which was delivered to him on 18.12.2008 and thereafter, filed the appeal in the year 2008 itself. It was also stated that respondent Chand Singh had neither refused to accept service nor did he ever evade the service of summons. The grounds of appeal taken therein have not been annexed with the present writ petitions, but learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has handed over the said grounds of appeal, which is taken on record and has been marked as “Mark A”. The Collector, Ferozepur allowed both the appeals by two separate orders of even date i.e., 04.11.2009. The Collector, Ferozepur observed that since there are apparent infirmities and miscarriage of justice had been caused, thus, the appeals accepted and the matters were remanded back to the Tehsildar-cum-A.C. 1st Grade, Ferozepur for a fresh decision. The arguments of respondent No.2 Chand Singh to the effect that there were illegality in the orders passed, including the arguments that partition of two separate khewats No.394 and 391 had been passed by a single order by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade and that a passage of 3 karams width had wrongly been deducted and allotted from the land of said Chand Singh were also taken into consideration. The father of the petitioner Babu Singh had filed two appeals against the said order dated 04.11.2009 before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur i.e., Appeal Part-35 of 2010 and Appeal Part-35 of 2010 and both the said appeals were allowed and the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur set aside the order dated 04.11.2009 passed by the Collector and restored the order dated 12.01.2006 passed by the Tehsildar-cum-1st Grade, Ferozepur. Thereafter, two revision petitions were filed by respondent No.2 Chand Singh before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh i.e. ROR-539 of 2013 and ROR-540 of 2013 and both the said revision petitions were allowed by a detailed order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab. A perusal of the said order would show that it had been observed that there was a clear violation of Section 20 of the Act with respect to no due service having been effected on the respondents in the partition applications. Reference was made to the report dated 28.04.2004 of the process serve