PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL,J. - (1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 05.11.2012 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Financial Commissioner, Revenue Department, Haryana whereby order dated 13.08.2010 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 22.03.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Collector, Panipat and Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, respectively, have been set aside.
(2.) In brief, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that respondent Nos.5 to 9 filed application for partition of land measuring 214 kanals 05 marlas, situated in village Jorasi Sarf Khas, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat. After completing formalities, Naksha Bey was called and objections were invited. The petitioners filed objection that Naksha Bey has not been prepared as per mode of partition dated 17.04.2001 (Annexure P-1). It is specifically mentioned in clause 3 of mode of partition that land under partition is situated in four separate taks, therefore, the parties be given land in each of the four taks as per their shares. The petitioners raised an objection that the private respondents herein have been given the valuable land in three taks situated near to road and village abadi, however, the petitioners have been given land of less value. It is also the case of the petitioners that the partition has not been done in accordance with the mode of partition and even objections have been disposed of in a casual manner by passing a non-speaking and sketchy order vide impugned order dated 23.06.2010 (Annexure P-3), passed by respondent No.4- Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Samalkha. Being dissatisfied, the petitioners preferred appeal before respondent No.3-Collector, who set aside the order dated 23.06.2010 (Annexure P-3) and remanded the case to respondent No.4-Assistant Collector-Ist Grade with a direction to pass a speaking order afresh, vide order dated 13.08.2010 (Annexure P-5). Feeling aggrieved, respondent Nos.5 to 9 preferred appeal before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, who dismissed the same vide order dated 22.03.2011 (Annexure P-6). Feeling aggrieved, respondent Nos.5 to 9 preferred revision before Financial Commissioner, Haryana who set aside the orders dated 22.03.2011 (Annexure P-6) and dated 13.08.2010 (Annexure P-5) and remanded the matter to the Collector to decide the case afresh, vide impugned order dated 05.11.2012 (Annexure P-7). Hence, this writ petition.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;