[115] Sita Devi (since deceased) through her LRs Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab Civil Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh and others Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] order dated Punjab, Chandigarh, under Section 16 of the The Financial Commissioner has annulled the partition proc per the counsel for the petitioners [2] that even though the co partition order i year 2016. petition filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay partition proceedings which stood fina IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-27335 Date of Decision : Sita Devi (since deceased) through her LRs Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab Civil Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Addl. AG, Punjab. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners has assailed order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh, whereby the revision under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, he Financial Commissioner has annulled the partition proc per the counsel for the petitioners had attained finality Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order, submitting that even though the co-sharers were put partition order in the year 2009, the revision petition was preferred in the year 2016. The Financial Commissioner not only entertained the revision petition filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay partition proceedings which stood finalized. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 27335-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.07.2026 Sita Devi (since deceased) through her LRs …Petitioners Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab Civil Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh and others ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Advocate Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Addl. AG, Punjab. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners has assailed passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the revision petition filed by the respondents Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 has been allowed he Financial Commissioner has annulled the partition proceedings which as had attained finality in the year 2009. Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order, submitting put in their respective share as per the n the year 2009, the revision petition was preferred in the Financial Commissioner not only entertained the revision petition filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay, but also annulled the ed. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners has assailed passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), filed by the respondents has been allowed. eedings which as Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order, submitting respective share as per the n the year 2009, the revision petition was preferred in the Financial Commissioner not only entertained the revision but also annulled the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.22 16:23 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-27335-2025 (O&M) -2- [3] Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the grounds on the basis of which the revision has been accepted are unsustainable. Once the respondents refused to receive the summons, no further orders were required to be passed and the Revenue Authorities rightly proceeded with the partition proceedings ex parte against the respondents. However, he is not in a position to dispute the fact that as per record the Naksha ‘Bay’ was approved on the day it was proposed and Naksha ‘Jeem’ was prepared. This act being in the teeth of statutory mandate as contemplated under Section 118 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 cannot be sustained. [4] In view thereof, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the instant writ petition. However, the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner is modified to the extent that the AC, 1st Grade, shall make an endeavour to finalize the partition proceedings preferably within a period of 06 months. Till then the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to possession of the land in dispute. [5] The writ petition stands disposed off in the above terms. [6] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 15.07.2026 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.22 16:23 I agree to specified portions of this document