- (1.) Petitioners have assailed the orders Annexures P4 & P7 dated 31.08.2006 & 11.02.2010 passed by SDM-cum-Collector, Kharar and Financial Commissioner respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioners urges that Financial Commissioner has erroneously set-aside the well reasoned order passed by the Commissioner on the ground that respondent No. 3 was a necessary party. According to him, Financial Commissioner ignored from consideration the fact that respondent No. 3 had purchased land measuring 2 kanals during the partition proceedings. Thus, he was not required to be summoned in the partition proceedings as he stepped into the shoes of actual owner. Impugned orders are unsustainable and deserve to be set-aside.
(2.) Plea has been opposed by counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. He submits that respondent No. 3 was deprived of his right being heard. According to him, Financial Commissioner after considering the entire record rightly passed the impugned order.
(3.) Brief factual background of the case is that petitioners filed an application before A.C. Ist Grade, Kharar for partition of land measuring 81 kanals and 7 marlas situated in village Kartarpur district Roopnagar. Said application was accepted vide order dated 12.11.1999. Aggrieved, respondent No. 4 filed an appeal which was accepted and case was remanded to AC Ist Grade for decision afresh. Pursuant to remand order, AC Ist Grade called for naksha 'urrd' and objections thereon were heard. Thereafter, statements of parties were recorded before framing mode of partition. After following due process, mode of partition was approved. Dissatisfied, petitioners preferred an appeal before Collector, Kharar. Said authority again remanded the case to A.C. Ist Grade, kharar to review the matter and decide after inspecting the spot. In compliance of remand order, A.C. 1st Grade after inspecting the spot finalized naksha 'arra' and 'irri' vide his order dated 06.07.2005. Aggrieved, respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Collector. A plea was raised by respondent No. 3 that he was not impleaded as a necessary party in the partition proceedings, despite being a co-sharer. Collector vide his order dated 31.08.2006 once again remanded the case to A.C. Ist Grade to decide afresh. Petitioners posed challenge to said order by filing revision before the Commissioner who vide his order dated 02.08.2007 accepted the plea and set-aside the order of Collector. Respondent No. 3 availed remedy of revision before Financial Commissioner (R) Punjab. Said authority after hearing the parties and appreciating the facts on record set-aside the order of Commissioner and upheld the order of Collector. Hence, instant petition.;