Alok Singh, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that vide order dated 26.7.2010 (Annexure P/7), learned Collector, Nangal has remanded the case to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nangal to decide it afresh. Feeling aggrieved by order, Annexure P/7, appeal was preferred by the Petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala. However, during the pendency of the appeal, without waiting for the decision of the appellate Court, learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade proceeded with the partition proceedings and has taken contrary view to the view he has already taken, thereby, allotting road -side valuable land to Respondent No. 5. However, learned Commissioner instead of deciding the appeal on merit, has dismissed it on the ground that during the pendency of the appeal, pursuant to the remand order, partition proceedings have already been finalized and Sanad Takseem has also been issued, therefore, the Petitioner had remedy either to file revision before the Financial Commissioner or to approach the High Court. He further states that against the order of dismissal of appeal passed by learned Divisional Commissioner dated 6.10.2010 (Annexure P/10), the Petitioner preferred Revision before the Financial Commissioner in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Amar Khan and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 741, however, the revisional Court, without entering into the controversy, vide impugned order dated 10.5.2011 (Annexure P/12) has dismissed the revision, saying that the matter stood remanded by Collector, therefore, the Petitioner can agitate his grievance before Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Learned Counsel has further stated that after issuance of Sanad Takseem by the Assistant Collector, Petitioner is now remediless and order of Financial Commissioner, on the face of it, is patently illegal.
(2.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perusing the record, I find that this is a fit case which can be decided at admission stage itself. Once learned Commissioner, while deciding the appeal, has held that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade has finalized the partition proceedings and has issued Sanad Takseem, the finding of Financial Commissioner that now the Petitioner can agitate his grievance before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, is apparently wrong. Learned Financial Commissioner ought to have decided the revision on merit, in accordance with law. Learned Financial Commissioner failed to notice that unless and until order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade finalizing the partition and issuance of Sanad Takseem is set -aside by him, Petitioner is remediless before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. In the opinion of this Court, the Financial Commissioner has failed to exercise his jurisdiction and has adopted casual approach.
(3.) IN view of the above, the impugned order passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Annexure P/12) dated 10.5.2011 is set -aside and the revision pending before the Financial Commissioner is restored. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) is directed to decide the revision petition, after hearing both the parties in accordance with law, keeping in view the law laid down in Amar Khan's case (supra). If Respondent No. 5 feels aggrieved of this order, he shall be at liberty to move Recall application before this Court.;