Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate,
For the Respondent:Mr. Navneet Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab., Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate, Mr. Anil Saini, Advocate and Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Advocate and Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate, Mr. Shailender Kashyap, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the impugned order dated 11.03.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.1 by entertaining the Review Application filed on behalf of the private respondents against the order dated 14.06.2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by the then Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab vide which the Revision Petition of the petitioners was dismissed. Further prayer has been made to restrain the private respondents from interfering in the possession of the petitioners under the garb of partition proceedings to get actual possession instead of symbolic possession to be incorporated in the revenue record.

2. This case has a chequered history. The facts as culled out from the submissions made by counsel for the parties are that Mehma Singh was the landowner, whose pedigree table submitted before this Court is as follows:-

3. Total land put under partition was 1018 Bighas and 5 Biswas. Out of this, land measuring 324 Bighas and 15 Biswas was under tenancy, whereas, remaining land measuring 715 bighas land was with the owner/co-sharers. An application for partition among the family members was filed with reference to land measuring 1018 Bighas and 5 Biswas. This application for partition was filed by Arjun Singh in the year 1964. The order dated 08.11.2004 and 22.11.2004 were passed by the Assistant Collector, whereas, order dated 28.02.2005 was passed by the Collector and thereafter, order dated 02.05.2005 was passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala. These orders with reference to the partition proceedings were challenged by way of two RORs before learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab i.e. ROR No.512 of 2005, which was disposed of on 17.06.2005, whereas, ROR No.461 of 2005, which was disposed of on 14.06.2005. The petitioners who contended themselves to be the tenants were protected and it was directed that they could be evicted only through the due process of law. Aggrieved by the same, private respondents filed a review petition before the Financial Commissioner and the same was allowed vide impugned order dated 11.03.2010, wherein, learned Financial Commissioner modified the order under review by striking down the direction given for evicting the petitioners through due process of law. Thus, aggrieved by the same, the petitioners who claimed themselves to be the tenants have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition impugning the order dated 11.03.2010 passed by respondent No.1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Som Nath Saini, has vehemently contended that the impugned order is unsustainable in the eyes of law as the same has been passed not only without jurisdiction but also in violation of the settled law. He has submitted that the petitioners challenged the orders dated 02.05.2005, 28.02.2005, 08.11.2004 and 22.11.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala; Collector, Sub Division Dera Bassi and Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Dera Bassi, respectively. He submits that the revision petition was dismissed with the observations that tenants are not to be dispossessed except in due course of law vide order dated 17.06.2005. It is submitted that another revision petition filed by one Kiran Dev, challenging the same orders was decided on 14.06.2005. He has submitted that after passing the order dated 14.06.2005, the petitioners were being forcibly dispossessed and thus, the counsel met the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), who passed the above-said orders. He has contended that thereafter, an application under Section 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1