Samay Singh and Others vs Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8973 and 9169 of 2010 (Samay Singh and others Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 8973 of 2010. In land measuring 308 kanals 19 marlas, the petitioners and respondent Nos. 5 to 15 are the co-sharers. An application for partition of this land was filed. It is stated that respondent Nos. 5 to 13 and 23 were in possession of their respective shares. Respondent No. 4 was proceeded against exparte. Mode of partition was prepared, as per which the partition was to be done by keeping in view the nature of land.

The respondents filed objections to Naksha Bey, which were dismissed. Thereafter, the respondents filed an appeal against the same, when a spot inspection was carried out. Respondent No. 3 found that the parties had been given land as per their possession and Naksha Bey has been prepared in accordance with the mode of partition. The respondents still filed a revision against the said order, whereby the case has been remanded to Assistant Collector for re-deciding the objections filed by the parties to Naksha Bey in depth. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioners filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner. He, however, has held that the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade as well as Collector are detailed one and were passed after due consideration but has still decided to remand the case back to the Collector for the sake of justice. The petitioners accordingly have filed this writ petition to impugn the order passed by the Financial Commissioner.

The only submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that once the Financial Commissioner found that the order passed by the Assistant Collector and Collector are detailed one, he ought to have affirmed the same instead of remanding the case back just by observing that he was doing so for the sake of justice. There should not be much objection to this course as adopted. After all, it is expected from all the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities to administer justice and they are meant for delivering justice. If the Financial Commissioner has decided to remand the case back for Collector to look into the grievance of the parties concerned and that too for the sake of justice, there can not be any objection, much less any violent objection, to this view as taken by him. It is the petitioners who had approached the Financial Commissioner being aggrieved against the order, which was standing against them. In that regard, remand by the Financial Commissioner would rather be to the benefit of the petitioners instead of being against them in any manner. The petitioners do not seem to be justified in making this grievance. The manner in which the petitioners have raised their plea would show that they would only want that order which would suit them or is to their liking and not what the authorities would consider legal and appropriate for the sake of justice. No case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction, thus, is made out. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.