Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : R.S. Rai, Kunal Dawar, Vipul Sharma, Rubina Virmani, Tanika Goyal, Prachi Gupta, Abhilaksh Grover
For the Respondents: Ravi Partap Singh, Amit Jain, Varun Parkash

Case Summary: M/S Active Promoters Private Limited and Others v. The Financial Commissioner Haryana and Others (CWP-31057-2024 and CWP-31054-2024)

Court and Decision: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided on 23.01.2026 by Justice Jagmohan Bansal. The petitions under Articles 226/227 were allowed, setting aside the Financial Commissioner's order dated 28.10.2024. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Parties: Petitioners (M/S Active Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and others in CWP-31057-2024; Ved Parkash Arya and others in CWP-31054-2024) challenged revenue authorities including Financial Commissioner Haryana. Private respondents (e.g., Ramesh, Chandrapal, Lakhmi and others) were co-sharers in land under Khewat Nos. 37 and 38. (!) (!) (!) [3]

Background Facts: Petitioners initiated partition proceedings for 298 Kanals 22 Marlas land across two khewats with 29 co-sharers. Assistant Collector finalized mode of partition (28.04.2008), Naksha-Bey (28.11.2008), issued Sanad Takseem (29.12.2008), and sanctioned mutation (10.08.2009). (!) [3][12]

Petitioners compromised with brothers Ramesh and Chandrapal; Assistant Collector closed proceedings (14.10.2013) affirming Sanad Takseem, with respondents receiving plots/cash consideration. Other co-sharers (Lakhmi etc.) appealed (dismissed 08.05.2014), but their revision led to remand (27.04.2018). Petitioners' revision before Financial Commissioner upheld Sanad Takseem (14.10.2021); related writ withdrawn (18.04.2023). (!) [3] (!) [4][5][6][7][12]

In 2023, Ramesh/Chandrapal (after ~10 years) appealed 14.10.2013 order (dismissed by Collector 30.05.2023), revision dismissed by Commissioner (22.11.2023), but Financial Commissioner allowed their revision under Section 16 of Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (1887 Act), setting aside all prior orders including Sanad Takseem (28.10.2024). Respondents also filed civil suit for Settlement Deed implementation (pending). (!) [7][9][10][12]

Petitioners' Arguments: Revision before Financial Commissioner post-01.04.2017 amendment to Section 16 unmaintainable (power shifted to Commissioner only); excessive delay/laches (10+ years after settlement); Sanad Takseem attained finality. [8][12][17]

Respondents' Arguments: Financial Commissioner retained jurisdiction under unamended Section 16; no delay as matter sub-judice till 2021; settlement non-implemented, justifying challenge. [10]

Key Legal Issues and Holdings: - Jurisdiction under Amended Section 16 (w.e.f. 10.04.2017): Pre-amendment, Financial Commissioner/Commissioner could revise; post-amendment, only Commissioner. Revision filed Jan.2024 before Financial Commissioner invalid as amendment procedural/retroactive, not affecting vested rights but changing forum. Second revision after Commissioner's post-2017 dismissal impermissible. [13][14] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [15][16] - Delay and Finality: Appeal under Section 118(2) limited to 15 days for mode of partition; no direct challenge to Sanad Takseem. 10-year delay after 2013 settlement, prior upholds (e.g., 14.10.2021), and acted-upon partition barred revisions by doctrine of laches. Financial Commissioner erred ignoring this and prior orders. [13][17][18] (!) (!) (!) - Settlement and Civil Suit: Dispute over Settlement Deed for civil courts; no basis to disturb finalized Sanad Takseem. [9][10][12][19]

Outcome: Petitions allowed; impugned order set aside. Sanad Takseem (29.12.2008) and related orders restored as final. [20] (!)