RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in Revision Petition No. 67/2007 (34/2003), decided on 19.8.2008 (Annexure P -7) by which, order passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nadaun, was set aside and a direction issued for decision of the matter afresh within six months. Prior to the present petition, CWP No. 1184 of 2006 was instituted by the petitioners in this Court challenging the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 30.5.2006 and 5.9.2006.

(2.) THIS Court in its judgment records that: -

(3.) THE case was taken up afresh by the learned Financial Commissioner. After hearing the parties, the order notes that the objection of the petitioners (before the Commissioner) was that there was unequal allotment of land along the side of the road besides allotment of inferior land. The order of partition dated 16.1.1998 notes that the petitioners did not appear on the spot despite being called etc. in which eventuality another notice should have been sent to them and they should have been heard before passing any order. More importantly, the Commissioner notes that from the Tatima (spot map) attached, it is not possible to make out which Khasra Numbers are adjoining and abutting the road side as even the road has not been depicted in the Tatima. The findings of the Collector that he visited the spot and found that the land abutting the road stands allocated to the petitioners is greater than their share, but this order is a nonspeaking order and does not deal the contention of the petitioners. There was no mention of the Khasra numbers etc. In this eventuality, the Commissioner concludes that it is a non -speaking order which requires to be set aside and the matter be considered afresh in accordance with law. For that purpose, direction was issued to the Collector to decide the case afresh within six months.