Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 24.10.2024 vs Finance Commissioner (Appeals) & ... on 24 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:10327-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.945 of 2017
Date of Decision: 24.10.2024
_______________________________________________________
Babu Ram .......Petitioner
Versus
Finance Commissioner (Appeals) & others ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals,
with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondent No.1.
Mr. H.S.Rana, Advocate, for respondent
Nos. 2 to 5.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated
14.06.2016 passed by Financial Commissioner(Appeals), Himachal
Pradesh (Annexure P-1), thereby directing the Collector as well as
Assistant Collector, 1st Grade Baddi, to ensure that the land abutting
road side or front portion is partitioned as per the shares of the
parties, to the extent feasible, petitioner has approached this Court in
the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:10327-DB
India, praying therein to set aside aforesaid order on the ground that
authority responsible for passing afore order never issued notice to
the petitioner in the revision petition, having been filed by the private
respondents, as a result thereof, petitioner was condemned unheard
and orders passed by the Court below, which were passed on proper
appreciation of facts as well as law on the point, thereby partitioning
the land interse parties on the basis of factual position existing on the
spot, came to be set-aside.
2. Vide order dated 18.05.2017, this Court, while issuing
notice to the respondents, stayed the order impugned in the instant
proceedings till further orders. No reply has been filed on behalf of the
private respondents despite notice.
3. Learned counsel representing respondent Nos.2 to 5
states that since Financial Commissioner (Appeals), while remanding
the case back to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Financial
Commissioner (Appeals) has not adjudicated the substantial rights of
the parties, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the
petitioner on account of non-issuance of notice by the Financial
Commissioner(Appeals) before passing the impugned order.
4. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General,
while putting appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 also made
2024:HHC:10327-DB
similar submissions as came to be put forth by learned counsel
representing respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties
and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning
assigned in the impugned order passed by Financial Commissioner
(Appeals) in Revision Petition No.111 of 2016, this Court finds that
private respondents laid challenge to order dated 20.4.2016 passed
by Collector, Sub-Division, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal
Pradesh in case No.17-VIII of 2014, upholding the order passed by
Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Baddi, thereby partitioning the land
interse parties on the basis of factual position existing on the spot.
Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh without issuing
notices to the petitioner herein, proceeded to pass the impugned
order by setting aside the order dated 20.04.2016 passed by
Collector, upholding the order dated 29.09.2014.
6. Though, perusal of order laid challenge in the instant
proceedings suggests that Financial Commissioner (Appeals) never
proceeded to decide the substantive rights of the parties, but
admittedly findings returned by two courts below in favour of the
petitioner came to be reversed without there being notice to the
petitioner. No doubt, Financial Commissioner (Appeals) having taken
note of material adduced on record before him could have remanded
2024:HHC:10327-DB
the case back, but certainly in that situation, he should have issued
notice to the petitioner, so that he could also put forth his stance
justifying the orders passed by Courts below in his favour. Since, it is
quite apparent from the order impugned in the instant proceedings
that no opportunity of being heard was ever afforded to the petitioner,
order impugned in the instant proceedings is not sustainable in the
eye of law being passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
7. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition
is allowed and order dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by
Financial Commissioner(Appeals) Himachal Pradesh is quashed and
set-aside with a direction to Financial Commissioner(Appeals),
Himachal Pradesh to decide the revision petition No.111/2016 afresh
by affording due opportunity of being heard to the parties to the lis.
8. Learned counsel representing the parties undertake to
cause presence of their respective clients before the Financial
Commissioner(Appeals), Himachal Pradesh on 12.11.2024, enabling
it to re-hear the matter and pass fresh order expeditiously, preferably
within a period of four weeks.
9. Learned Additional Advocate General undertakes to
apprise the Financial Commissioner(Appeals),Himachal Pradesh with
regard to passing of the instant order, enabling it to do the needful
2024:HHC:10327-DB
well within stipulated time. Pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
October 24, 2024
(shankar)
