Ramphal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

3 The respondents approached Financial Commissioner, Haryana aggrieved of ex-parte order passed in partition proceedings. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, set aside the orders passed by the authorities and remanded the matter to be decided by Assistant Collector, 2^nd Grade to decide afresh, de-novo observing as under :-

¶15

“I have heard the counsels for the parties and have gone through the record available on file. The limitation starts from the date of knowledge, therefore the delay is justified, hence condoned. On perusal of the record, it is revealed that petitioner no.1 was arrayed as respondent no. 74 in the partition application and Assistant Collector 2nd Grade vide order dated 15.07.2011 mentioned the respondent residing out of the village. However, later on based on the Munadi held in the village where land in question is situated, she has been proceeded ex-parte. Also, Respondent No. 86 Dariya Singh has been served through Munadi, however he has been stated to be died even before the filing of the partition proceedings. It is settled principle of Law that the party has a right to be heard, in view of the principle of natural justice, before finalization of the proceedings. It is matter of record that some of the petitioners have not been heard, therefore, their right of being heard has been infringed upon. As such, the matter is remanded to Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade with the direction to decide the partition proceedings de-novo after hearing the parties. The partition proceedings were initiated in the applications filed on 09.05.2011. Therefore, Assistant Collector is also directed to conclude the proceedings within six months. The petition is disposed off accordingly. To be communicated.”

¶16

POOJA SHARMA 2026.07.14 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

4 Counsel for the petitioners submits that both the grounds which weighed with the Financial Commissioner regarding non-service of Daria Singh and Vidya Devi and the findings recorded are against the records. He submits that the Financial Commissioner erred on facts in recording that Daria Singh died prior to the institution of the partition proceedings. The partition application was instituted on 09.05.2011, whereas Daria Singh died on 10.04.2012 i.e. much after the partition application was instituted. He further submits that the finding with respect to non-service upon Vidya Devi is also against the record. Vidya Devi was served at her matrimonial house in village Gahli. Reliance is being placed upon Annexure P-12 i.e. postal receipt.

¶19

5 Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for respondents No.2, 7 to 9 is not in a opposition to dispute the aforesaid facts. He however submits that the respondents still have right to contest the partition on merits.

¶20

6 In view thereof, order dated 08.10.2021 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Financial Commissioner to decide revision afresh in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 17.08.2026

¶21

7 Petition stands disposed off.

¶22

8 Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed off.

¶23

( PANKAJ JAIN ) 08.07.2026 JUDGE

¶24

Pooja Sharma-I

¶25

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶26

POOJA SHARMA 2026.07.14 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document