Posted On by &filed under High Court, Punjab-Haryana High Court.

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbax Singh vs Financial Commissioner on 2 September, 2009
           In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

                          C.W.P. No.13646 of 2009

                                                     Date of decision:2.9.2009

                                Gurbax Singh

           Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab and others

Present:     Mr. Tajinder Pal Singh Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner.

S.S. Saron, J.

Maan Singh (respondent No.3) along with others filed an

application (Annexure-P.2) for correcting Khasra Girdawri of land

measuring 23 Kanals 7 Marlas as detailed in the head note of the said

application for the crop Kharif 2007 till date of the said application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in fact the

Financial Commissioner vide order dated 9.1.2006 (Annexure-P.1) had

sanctioned Khasra Girdawri of this very land measuring 23 Kanals 7 Marlas

in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the application

dated 6.7.2009 (Annexure-P.3) filed by the petitioner wherein the order

dated 9.1.2006 (Annexure-P.1) has also been attached, was liable to be

decided by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Zira in terms of the order

dated 9.1.2006 (Annexure-P.1).

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may

be noticed that the primary grievance of the petitioner is that the Assistant

Collector 2nd Grade, Zira is not deciding the application dated 6.7.2009
C.W.P. No.13646 of 2009

(Annexure-P.3) filed by the petitioner. It may be noticed that the

application has been filed only on 6.7.2009. In case there is inaction on the

part of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, the petitioner in the first instance

is liable to be approach the Assistant Collector Ist Grade or the District

Collector. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of

the Constitution of India without exhausting the other remedies that are

available would not warrant interference by this Court. The writ petition is


Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being premature.

September 2, 2009. (S.S. Saron)

NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

89 queries in 0.149 seconds.