CWP-10042-2018 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 231 CWP-10042-2018 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.07.2026 Ramotar and others ...... Petitioners versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. Challenge is to the order dated 11.05.2016 (Annexure P-9) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana whereby the Financial Commissioner on revision preferred by respondent No.2 has set aside the partition proceedings initiated by the present petitioner observing as under:- “xx xx xx Keeping in view the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner the partition proceedings have not been conducted by the AC 1 Grade, Kanina as per law. The respondents No. 1 and 2 while filing the partition application neither impleaded the legal heirs of respondent No. 14 as party nor the petitioner impleaded the necessary party. The partition proceedings have been done behind the back of the petitioner as well as legal heirs of respondent No. 14. Therefore, I allow the present revision and set aside all the impugned orders passed by the AC 1st Grade, Kanina. The case is remanded to the AC 1st Grade, Kanina with the DINESH KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10042-2018 (O&M) 2 directions to decide the case afresh after hearing the objections of the petitioner as she was not impleaded as necessary party by the respondent No. 1 and 2.” 2. So far as legal heirs of respondent No.14-Santra (respondent No.15 herein) are concerned, till date they have not raised any challenge against the sanad taksim. Partition application was filed on 16.07.2009. Petitioner purchased land vide sale deed dated 02.11.2012. Thus, on the day the application for partition was filed, respondent No.2 was not co-sharer in the joint land and thus cannot claim to be a necessary or proper party on the said date. 3. In view thereof, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 11.05.2016 passed by Financial Commissioner cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. The Financial Commissioner shall decide revision afresh, in accordance with law within a period of 03 months from today. 4. Disposed off, accordingly. 5. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 27.07.2026 Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No DINESH KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document