JUDGMENT :

Harsh Bunger, J.

This order shall dispose of CWP No.10718-2024 titled as Adhikaansh Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and others as well as CWP No.24601-2021 titled as Adhikaansh Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and others, as both the cases involve common question of law and facts.

1.1 Prayer in CWP-10718-2024 is, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure P-17); whereby, the learned Financial Commissioner has allowed the revision petition (ROR-352-2021) along with another revision petition (ROR-17-2022) titled as Rukmani vs Ranbir and others.

1.2 Prayer in CWP-24601-2021 is, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure P-13); whereby, the learned Financial Commissioner, has dismissed the application submitted by the petitioner for being impleaded as a party in revision petition (ROR-352-2021) titled as Naman and others vs Ranbir and others.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being derived from CWP-10718-2024 titled as Adhikaansh Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and others.

3. Briefly, on 29.09.2015, Ranbir Singh son of Girdhari Lal (respondent No.7) filed an application for partition of joint land comprised in Khewat no.182 (as per Jamabandi for the year 2004-2005), situate at Village Hayatpur, Tehsil and District Gurugram, total land measuring 81 kanals - 5 marlas.

3.1 In the afore-said partition application, one M/s Ramaprasta Share Land Holding Company Pvt. Ltd., was also impleaded as a party. It appears that during the pendency of the afore-said partition proceedings, Vatika Infracon Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.8, herein) purchased a part of the land under partition from co-sharers, who were already arrayed as respondents in the partition application.

3.2 In the partition proceedings, the mode of partition came to be finalized on 16.11.2017 and thereafter, naksha bey was called from the Field Staff. Upon receipt of the naksha bey, objections of the respective co-sharers were called and two sets of objections dated 09.01.2018 came to be filed. One set of objection was filed by Ranbir Singh (respondent No.7) and another set of objections were filed by the legal heirs (present respondents No.2 to 6) of Satnarayan and Bagirath, who were the original respondents in the partition application.

3.3 The objections to naksha bey came to be rejected by the learned Assistant Collector and naksha bey was approved vide order dated 16.01.2018.

3.4 The afore-said order dated 16.01.2018, approving naksha bey, came to be challenged by way of two separate appeals before the learned Collector, Gurugram. One appeal was filed by Ranbir Singh and the another appeal was filed by present respondents No.2 to 6.

3.5 Both the afore-said appeals came to be dismissed by the learned Collector, Gurugram vide order dated 03.05.2018.

3.6 Thereafter, naksha zeem (Annexure P-3) came to be prepared and sanad takseem (Annexure P-4) came to be issued on 15.05.2018.

3.7 It appears that present respondents No.2 to 6 and respondent No.7 filed two separate revision petitions, challenging the order dated 03.05.2018 passed by the learned Collector, Gurugram before the learned Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram; wherein an ex-parte order dated 29.05.2018 was passed staying the operation of the orders passed by the learned Courts below.

3.8 Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner; respondent No.8 herein (Vatika Infracon Pvt. Ltd.) filed two revision petitions i.e. ROR-73-2021 and ROR-74-2021 before the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana; seeking setting aside of order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner.

3.9 It transpires that one more revision petition i.e. ROR-80-2021 came to be filed by one Rukmani, who claimed herself to be the legal heir of one Laxmi