Ramesh vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

“Briefly, the Financial Commissioner vide an Order dated 10.12.2020 in ROR No. 02 of 2019-20 between the same parties had upheld the Mode of Partition and the draft Naksha 'ख'. The Assistant Collector, Gharaunda vide order dated 15.04.2021 approved the Naksha 'ख', which was upheld by the Financial Commissioner earlier. The Naksha 'जीम' is a mere translation of the approved Naksha 'ख' and forms an annexure to the sanad takseem. The sanad takseem, with Naksha 'जीम' annexed to it, is akin to a court decree and is a mere translation of the Naksha 'ख'.

2.

The Petitioner approached the High Court in CWP No. 5795 of 2021 against the order of the Financial Commissioner. The Petition was withdrawn with the liberty to avail a remedy before the Financial Commissioner as available under law. I have heard the two counsels. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondents submits that since the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 10.12.2020 in earlier ROR No. 02 of 2019-20 upheld the Naksha 'ख' to be legally justified and correct, the sanad takseem which is a mere translation of the Naksha 'ख', cannot be re-adjudicated because of the principle of res judicata.

3.

The High Court did not strike out the order dated 10.12.2020 of the Financial Commissioner in ROR No. 02 of 2019-20. But, in view of the High Court's order dated 31.01.2024 in CWP No. 5795 of 2021 and further clarification dated 12.03.2024 in CM-4228-CWP-2024 in CWP-5795-2021, the present petition was taken up as a review petition u/s 15 of the Land Revenue Act, after condoning the delay period of three years. The Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has advanced no new ground to merit re-consideration of the earlier order dated 10.12.2020 of the Financial Commissioner in ROR No. 02 of 2019-20, wherein the Naksha 'ख' was upheld. Since the sanad takseem is a mere translation of the Naksha 'ख', which was approved up to the level of the Financial Commissioner, and no new ground has been advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner for a re-consideration of the earlier order of the Financial Commissioner, the review fails. Petition dismissed.”

“Instant application has been filed praying for clarification/modification of the order dated 31.01.2024.

This Court vide order dated 31.01.2024 had disposed of the main case wherein the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Financial Commissioner by way of filing the revision. It has been submitted by counsel for the applicant/petitioner that learned Financial Commissioner has passed order dated 16.02.2024, Annexure A-1, which ^{DINESH KUMAR} necessitated for clarification of the order dated 31.01.2024. Notice of the application be issued to respondents/State only at this stage. On the asking of the Court, Ms.Upasana Dhawan, AAG, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/State. Heard. Though the order passed by this Court is self speaking, however, still it is being clarified that the petitioner had withdrawn this petition with liberty to file a revision against the Sanad Takseem, which was issued during pendency of the petition filed before this Court. It is apparent that the Financial Commissioner would have to hear the case afresh as orders earlier passed by Courts below stood merged into the final order of Sanad Takseem, dated 29.07.2021. Learned Financial Commissioner is directed to decide the revision petition by taking into consideration the complete facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments raised by the parties. The application stands disposed of.”