Alok Singh, J. - (1.) (Oral) - Learned Financial Commissioner vide order dated 29.5.2008 has allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by Collector remanding the case to the Assistant Collector. Learned Financial Commissioner has allowed the revision petition on the ground that after finalisation of the sanad takseem noting remains to be done by the revenue authorities, therefore, remand by Collector is not justified.
(2.) Record reveals that Ram Parshad has sold his share to present petitioner-Vijay Pal during the pendency of the partition proceedings without disclosing him about the pendency of the partition proceedings. Ram Parshad has also not disclosed to the revenue authorities that he has alienated his share to the present petitioner-Vijay Pal; thereafter Ram Parshad has given his consent to the partition; partition proceedings were completed at the back of Vijay Pal without hearing him; Vijay Pal thereafter filed revision before the Collector. Learned Collector vide order dated 24.8.2004 has observed that Ram Parshad had already sold agricultural land of his share on 13.3.2001 in favour of Vijay Pal; he should have brought this fact to the notice of the Court below that he had sold the land of his share under partition; Ram Parshad, vendor, after selling the property in favour of Vijay Pal had wrongly given his no objection on 27.7.2001 for preparation of naksha 'Be' of the land under partition.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by respondents No.5 and 6 herein before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, which was also dismissed vide order dated 28.9.2006 confirming the order of remand passed by learned Collector. While confirming order of Collector, learned Divisional Commissioner has held that justice demands that Vijay Pal, who had meanwhile purchased the half share of the total lands, naturally deserved to be given hearing so that he could protect his interests.;