The central legal point established in the judgment is the correct procedure for filing an appeal or revision under Section 16(1) of the Haryana Land Revenue Act, and the jurisdiction of the Divisional Commissioner to entertain the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the impugned order, dated 19.12.2022 (Annexure P-3) order 17.02.2023 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 19.12.2022 i.e. Mode of Partition (Annexure P-2), Naksha Bay, which is approved on 26.05.2023 (Annexure P-6), Naksha Zeem dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure P-8) and Sanad Takseem dated 20.06.2023 (Annexure P-10) and order dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure P-12) vide which appeal of the petitioners has been dismissed being illegal and against law. Further prayer has been made for staying the operation of impugned orders or dispossession of the petitioners during pendency of the present petition.

2. Adumbrated facts of the case are that respondent No. 4-Om Parkash (since deceased) had filed a partition application for partition of land measuring 691 kanal 14 marla situated at village Kavi Tehsil Madloda, District Panipat, as per jamabandi for the year 2019-20, on 20.08.2021, Annexure P-1. Notice in the application was issued for 27.09.2021. After service of notice, Naksha Alif was called vide order dated 25.02.2022. Thereafter Naksha Alif was approved and the case was fixed for mode of partition. On 05.08.2022, mode of partition was received, however, the present petitioners objected to the same and on 19.12.2022, arguments were heard and objection on Point No. 2 were accepted and the case was adjourned to 26.12.2022 for further objections. It is submitted that the present petitioners had raised a specific objection that the partition be done by keeping the possession intact but without considering all these objections, the amended Mode of partition was approved on 19.12.2022 and the final order on objections has been passed on 17.02.2023. Naksha Bay is also approved on 26.05.2023 alongwith map. Thereafter Naksha Zeem is also approved on 12.06.2023 as per Naksha Bay without considering the objections of present petitioners. Thereafter Sanad Takseem was issued on 20.06.2023. It is further submitted that land of the petitioners has been bifurcated and the whole possession of the petitioners has been disturbed while keeping the possession of others intact.

3. Aggrieved with the mode of partition, the petitioners filed appeal against the orders dated 26.05.2023, 12.06.2023 and 20.06.2023, however, learned Divisional Commissioner, has rejected the same by observing that the Court of Divisional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted before this Court that as per amendment of Section 16(1) of the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short ‘the Act’) the revision petition is maintainable before the Commissioner, whereas the petitioners had filed the appeal before the Commissioner which was held to be not maintainable.

5. In view of the above and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is apparent that the petitioners had filed the appeal under Section 16(1) of the Act, whereas as per the mandate of Section 16(1) of the Act, revision is maintainable. Section 16(1) of the Act reads thus:

“16. Power to call for, examine and revise proceedings of Revenue officer:

(1) The Commissioner may call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by any Revenue-officer under his control and pass such orders, as he thinks fit.”

6. Hence, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file the revision petition in accordance with the provisions of Section 16(1) of the Act before the Commissioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case any petition is filed before the Commissioner within the stipulated time, the same would be heard and decided by the Commissioner in accordance with law.

7. Till the filing of the petition, the status quo be maintained.

8. It is also made clear that if no such petition is filed within the stipulated period, as directed, then this order would be of no avail to the petitioners.