L .M.JAIN,J. - (1.) This is a revision petition against the order of Commissioner Rohtak dated 30.5.1993 vide which the Commissioner had recorded the mutual consent of both the parties and after calling for the record the same day, finalised the amended Naksha 'Be' at his own level within seven days. Earlier, Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rohtak vide his order dated 2.2.1994 had finalised the mode of partition and called for Naksha 'Be' on 8.2.1994. Appeal against this order was dismissed by the Collector, Rohtak on 12.4.1994.
(2.) THE petitioner's counsel stated that the compromise recorded in the orders by the Commissioner was never entered into between the parties and the Commissioner has not cared even to reduce in writing the statements of the parties to that effect. The action taken by the Commissioner in getting Naksha 'Be' prepared himself, approving it and ordering the preparing of Sanad Taqseem on that basis as also delivery of possession of the parties was most unusual step whereas the matter before him was only with regard to mode of partition finalised by the Assistant Collector. Referring to Section 16(3) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, it was stated that if the Commissioner was of the view that the order deserved to be reversed in revision, he was required to report the case with his opinion for the orders of the Financial Commissioner. He cannot modify the orders himself. The counsel for the respondent stated that the Commissioner has passed the orders with the consent of the parties and those orders should be sustained. I find that the procedure adopted by the Commissioner is not only most unusual but it is also contrary to the legal provisions and powers of the Commissioner in revisional jurisdiction under the Land Revenue Act. First of all, the Commissioner could not have modified the orders in revision at his own level and was required to report the case with his opinion for the orders of the Financial Commissioner Secondly, the matter before the Commissioner was only regarding mode of partition but the Commissioner has assumed the role of Assistant Collector IInd Grade himself and also Sanad Taqseem on the basis of which possession was ordered has gone ahead to finalise the Naksha 'Be' to be delivered to the parties within 7 days. This is an extremely irregular course of action adopted by the Commissioner and he has not even cared to get the so called compromise between the parties recorded in writing with their signature which should bind them down to the said compromise later. Any compromise between the parties has to be recorded before the Court and no Court is advised to proceed on the basis of any oral statement that might have been made by the parties regarding such a compromise. The Commissioner has faulted in failure to follow the procedure in all respects in exercise of jurisdiction and assuming for himself the role of Assistant Collector IInd Grade. Such an action by the Commissioner legitimately gives rise to serious doubts about the competence of the Officer to handle such like legal matters in appeals/revision petitions against the orders of lower revenue Courts. The Commissioner will be well advised to read the various law books which confer jurisdiction on him and also peruse the procedure laid down which are required to guide him in discharging his jurisdiction as appellate or revisional authority. I am constrained to observe that the Commissioner has mishandled this case terribly and given a very poor account of himself.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , I set aside the order dated 30.5.1995 passed by the Commissioner. I also find that the Collector vide his order dated 12.4.1994 had rightly rejected the appeal against the orders of Assistant Collector Ist Grade dated 2.2.1994 approving the mode of partition and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade is directed to take further action on the partition case accordingly. Announced. Petition accepted.;