JUDGMENT

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. (Oral)

At request of both the sides, the Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. LPA-309-2023, which was posted for 12.04.2023, is preponed and taken on board today itself.

2. We have heard elaborate submissions yesterday and today made by the counsel for the appellant and counsel for respondent No.5.

3. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dt. 21.11.2022 passed in CWP No.19481 of 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant.

4. In the Writ Petition, the appellant had challenged 4 orders i.e. (i) order dt. 01.06.2022 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, (ii) order dt. 05.01.2021 passed by the Collector, Jhajjar, (iii) order dt.05.11.2019 and (iv) order dt.08.03.2019 passed by the Assistant Collector, Grade-I, Jhajjar in partition application No. 17/NT under the Punjab Land Revenue Act.

The order of the learned single judge

5. In the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge upheld all these orders.

6. After recording the contentions of the parties, the learned Single Judge considered the question whether the Revision filed by the Writ Petitioner before the Commissioner, Rohtak was maintainable or not, and whether the interim orders passed by the said Commissioner on 08.02.2021 directing maintenance of status quo, which was later extended on 08.03.2021, were valid or not.

7. He also adverted to the order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 01.06.2022 setting aside the orders of the Commissioner, Rohtak on the ground that the Commissioner, Rohtak had no jurisdiction.

8. The learned Single Judge then referred to amendment made to Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 vide Punjab Land (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1996 and held that before amendment was notified on 10.04.2017, the Financial Commissioner had the jurisdiction to revise the orders passed by the subordinate officer; in exercise of the said power, he could even revise interims orders and withdraw a case if he found any illegality or irregularity in the pending proceedings or if the same was without jurisdiction; a Commissioner also exercised powers of revision, but the Financial Commissioner being a higher official, Sanad issued in partition proceedings could only be challenged before him or by filing of a Writ Petition as held by this Court in Amar Khan and others v. State of Punjab & others Order dt. 22.05.2007 in CWP No.14750 of 2004.

9. He then went on to say that post amendment, only the Commissioner exercises revisional jurisdiction and the Financial Commissioner has been deprived of the said power. He also referred to decision in Smt. Rajesh & others v. State of Haryana & others Order dt.12.05.2017 in CWP No. 10182 of 2017, and held that the amendment dt.10.04.2017 would apply prospectively and would govern only those cases in which partition application was instituted after the said date.

10. On the basis of these principles, the learned Single Judge went on to hold that in the instant case, the partition application was filed on 25.03.2011 i.e. prior to the enactment of the Amending Act No.12 of 2017 and thus, the Sanad dt.5.11.2019could have been challenged by the petitioner only before the Financial Commissioner. He therefore held that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Rohtak were patently without jurisdiction and the said orders have been rightly set aside by th