IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

(1)

ADHIKAANSH REALTORS PVT. LTD.

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, HARYANA AND

OTHERS

(2)

ADHIKAANSH REALTORS PVT. LTD.

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, HARYANA AND

OTHERS

CORAM:

Present :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

ADHIKAANSH REALTORS PVT. LTD.

Versus

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, HARYANA AND

ADHIKAANSH REALTORS PVT. LTD.

Versus

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, HARYANA AND

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER

Mr. Randeep S. Rai, Senior Advocate

and Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior Advocate assisted by

Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate

Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate

Ms. RubinaVirmani, Advocate

Ms. Radhika Mehta, Advocate

Ms. Nitika Sharma, Advocate

Mr. Varun Aryan Sharma, Advocat

and Mr. Arjun S. Rai, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate

for respondents No.2 to 6.

Mr. Kulwant Singh Boparai, Advocate

for respondent No.9(i).

Page 1 of 16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-10718-2024 (O&M)

…Petitioner

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, HARYANA AND

…Respondents

CWP-24601-2021 (O&M)

Date of decision : 11.03.2025

…Petitioner

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, HARYANA AND

…Respondents

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER

Senior Advocate

and Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior Advocate assisted by

Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate

Mr. Varun Aryan Sharma, Advocate

and Mr. Arjun S. Rai, Advocate

Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Kulwant Singh Boparai, Advocate

16

2024 (O&M)

Date of decision : 11.03.2025

Page 2 of 16

HARSH BUNGER, J.

This order shall dispose of CWP No.10718-2024 titled as

Adhikaansh Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Financial Commissioner, Revenue,

Haryana and others as well as CWP No.24601-2021 titled as Adhikaansh

Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and

others, as both the cases involve common question of law and facts.

1.1 Prayer in CWP-10718-2024 is, inter alia, for issuance of a writ

in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 08.04.2024

(Annexure P-17); whereby, the learned Financial Commissioner has

allowed the revision petition (ROR-352-2021) along with another revision

petition (ROR-17-2022) titled as Rukmani vs Ranbir and others.

1.2 Prayer in CWP-24601-2021 is, inter alia, for issuance of a writ

in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 22.11.2021

(Annexure P-13); whereby, the learned Financial Commissioner, has

dismissed the application submitted by the petitioner for being impleaded

as a party in revision petition (ROR-352-2021) titled as Naman and others

vs Ranbir and others.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being derived from

CWP-10718-2024 titled as Adhikaansh Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Financial

Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and others.

3. Briefly, on 29.09.2015, Ranbir Singh son of Girdhari Lal

(respondent No.7) filed an application for partition of joint land comprised

in Khewat no.182 (as per Jamabandi for the year 2004-2005), situate at

Village Hayatpur, Tehsil and District Gurugram, total land measuring

81 kanals – 5 marlas.

3.1 In the afore-said partition application, one M/s Ramaprasta

Share Land Holding Company Pvt. Ltd., was also impleaded as a party. It

Page 3 of 16

appears that during the pendency of the afore-said partition proceedings,

Vatika Infracon Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.8, herein) purchased a part of the

land under partition from co-sharers, who were already arrayed as

respondents in the partition application.

3.2 In the partition proceedings, the mode of partition came to be

finalized on 16.11.2017 and thereafter, naksha bey was called from the

Field Staff. Upon receipt of the naksha bey, objections of the respective co-

sharers were called and two sets of objections dated 09.01.2018 came to be

filed. One set of objection was filed by Ranbir Singh (respondent No.7) and

another set of objections were filed by the legal heirs (present respondents

No.2 to 6) of Satnarayan and Bagirath, who were the original respondents

in the partition application.

3.3 The objections to naksha bey came to be rejected by the

learned Assistant Collector and naksha bey was approved vide order dated

16.01.2018.

3.4 The afore-said order dated 16.01.2018, approving naksha bey,

came to be challenged by way of two separate appeals before the learned

Collector, Gurugram. One appeal was filed by Ranbir Singh and the another

appeal was filed by present respondents No.2 to 6.

3.5 Both the afore-said appeals came to be dismissed by the

learned Collector, Gurugram vide order dated 03.05.2018.

3.6 Thereafter, naksha zeem (Annexure P-3) came to be prepared

and sanad takseem (Annexure P-4) came to be issued on 15.05.2018.

3.7 It appears that present respondents No.2 to 6 and respondent

No.7 filed two separate revision petitions, challenging the order dated

03.05.2018 passed by the learned Collector, Gurugram before the learned

Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram; wherein an ex-parte order

Page 4 of 16

dated 29.05.2018 was passed staying the operation of the orders passed by

the learned Courts below.

3.8 Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 29.05.2018 passed

by the learned Commissioner; respondent No.8 herein (Vatika Infracon Pvt.

Ltd.) filed two revision petitions i.e. ROR-73-2021 and ROR-74-2021

before the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana; seeking setting aside

of order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner.

3.9 It transpires that one more revision petition i.e. ROR-80-2021

came to be filed by one Rukmani, who claimed herself to be the legal heir

of one Laxmi Devi (a co-sharer in the land under partition). All the

afore-said three revision petitions i.e. ROR-73-2021, ROR-74-2021 and

ROR-80-2021, came to be decided by the learned Financial Commissioner,

vide common order dated 28.07.2021 (Annexure P-5), holding that the

revision petitions filed by respondents No.2 to 6 and respondent No.7

before the learned Divisional Commissioner, were not maintainable, since

the same had been filed after the issuance of sanad takseem dated

15.05.2018.

3.10 The present petitioners claimed that after the decision of the

afore-said three revision petitions on 28.07.2021 (Annexure P-5), two

Exchange Deeds dated 30.07.2021 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) came to be

executed between respondent No.8-Vatika Infracon Pvt. Ltd. and the

present petitioners (Adhikaansh Realtors Pvt. Ltd.), whereunder, they

exchanged their land with a part of the land under partition, which had

fallen to the share of respondent No.8-M/s Vatika Infracon Pvt. Ltd.

3.11 It appears that in September-2021, the present respondents

No.2 to 6 filed another revision petition (ROR-352-2021), challenging the

sanad takseem dated 15.05.2018 along with order dated 16.01.2018;

Page 5 of 16

whereby, naksha bey was approved and also the order dated 03.05.2018

passed by the learned Collector.

3.12 In the afore-said revision petition (ROR-352-2021), a

status-quo order dated 21.09.2021 (Annexure P-7) was passed by the

learned Financial Commissioner. However, upon learning about the

afore-said revision petition (ROR-352-2021), the present petitioner

preferred three applications, as under :-

(i) an application for pre-ponement of hearing in the

Revision Petition (in ROR-352-2021) ;

(ii) application for impleadment (in ROR-352-2021);

(iii) application for vacation of status-quo order dated

21.09.2021 (Annexure P-7)

3.13 Apparently, the learned Financial Commissioner, vide order

dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure P-13) dismissed the application filed by the

petitioners for seeking impleadment in the afore-said revision petition i.e.

ROR-352-2021.

3.14 Feeling aggrieved against the afore-said order dated

21.09.2021 (Annexure P-7) and also the order dated 22.11.2021

(Annexure P-13), the petitioner preferred a writ pe tition

i.e. CWP-24601-2021, wherein, the following order dated 03.12.2021

(Annexure P-14) was passed :-

“It is submitted that the Financial Commissioner

was in error in rejecting the application for

impleadment filed by the petitioner on the ground that

the petitioner was not a co-sharer in the land on the

date the application for partition was filed. The

petitioner has acquired title by way of registered

exchange deeds obtained from the erstwhile owner,

namely, M/s Vatika Infracon Private Limited after the

sanad takseem in question had been upheld by the

Page 6 of 16

Financial Commissioner vide order dated 28.07.2021.

Thus, the order is perverse and deserves to be set aside.

Still further, order of status quo dated 21.09.2021 has

been passed mechanically without taking into

consideration the fact that he himself has upheld the

same vide order dated 28.07.2021.

Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 8 only for

19.05.2022.

Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, AAG, Haryana, accepts

notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and waives service.

Remaining respondents be served in the ordinary

manner.

Meanwhile, operation of order dated 21.09.2021

(Annexure P-7) and order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure

P-13) shall remain stayed.”

3.15 The above extracted order dated 03.12.2021 was challenged by

respondents No.2 to 6 herein by way of filing an Intra-

Court Appeal

i.e. LPA-127-2022 before the Division Bench of this Court; however, the

same was dismissed.

3.16 During the pendency of the afore- said writ petition

i.e. CWP-24601-2021, the learned Financial Commissioner proceeded to

finally decide the revision petitions i.e. ROR-352-2021 and ROR-17-2022,

vide common order dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure P-17); whereby, the

revision petitions have been allowed by setting aside the order dated

16.01.2018 passed by the learned Assistant Collector, approving

naksha bey and also the Collector’s order dated 03.05.2018. Even the sanad

takseem dated 15.05.2018 has been set aside and the matter has been

remanded to the learned Assistant Collector 2

nd

Grade, Harsaru, with a

direction to carry out the partition proceedings afresh, strictly according to

the mode of partition.

Page 7 of 16

3.17 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed

the present writ petition i.e. CWP-10718-2024 before this Court, inter alia,

seeking setting aside of order dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure P-17) passed by

the learned Financial Commissioner.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits

that the learned Financial Commissioner has erred in law and fact in not

only dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for being impleaded

as the party in the revision petition i.e. ROR-352-2021 but has further erred

in law and fact in allowing the revision petition (ROR-352-2021) by setting

aside the partition proceedings and remanding the matter to the learned

Assistant Collector, for deciding the case afresh, despite the fact that the

issue concerning impleadment of the petitioners as a party in the revision

petition, was pending consideration before this Court and even the orders

passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, had been stayed vide order

dated 03.12.2021 passed in CWP-24601-2021. It is further submitted that

even otherwise, the learned Financial Commissioner has wrongly

entertained and allowed the revision petition (ROR-352-2021) without

appreciating that earlier the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana had

rendered a decision dated 28.07.2021 (Annexure P-5), while deciding three

revision petitions i.e. ROR-73-2021, ROR-74-2021 and ROR-80-2021,

holding that the partition proceedings have been finalized strictly as per the

mode of partition.

4.1 It is submitted that once in an earlier round of litigation, the

learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana has observed that the partition

proceedings have been finalized strictly as per the mode of partition;

therefore, the learned Financial Commissioner while deciding

ROR-352-2021 could not have set aside the partition proceedings on the

Page 8 of 16

ground that the partition proceedings have been carried out in violation of

the mode of partition. It is, accordingly, prayed that the impugned order(s )

may be set aside and the revision petition (ROR-352-2021) be declared to

be not maintainable.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the p rivate

respondents have opposed the submissions made on behalf of learned

counsel for the petitioner(s) by submitting that the petitioner herein is a

subsequent purchaser during the pendency of the partition proceedings and

was not recorded as a co-sharer; therefore, their impleadment application

was rightly rejected by the learned Financial Commissioner. It is further

submitted that since, there was no stay on the proceedings before the

learned Financial Commissioner, therefore, the learned Financial

Commissioner proceeded to decide the revision petition i.e. ROR-352-2021

and no fault can be found therein. It is further submitted that in earlier

revision petitions i.e. ROR-73-2021, ROR-74-2021 and ROR-80-2021, it

was held that the appeals preferred against the naksha bey were not

maintainable on account of the fact that the sanad taksim dated 15.05.2018

already stood issued, therefore, the subsequent revision petition

i.e. ROR-352-2021 challenging sanad taksim was maintainable.

5.1 With the afore-said submissions, prayer for dismissal of the

writ petitions has been made.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and

have perused the paper-book with their able assistance.

7. In the present case, the partition application came to be filed

by respondent No.7-Ranbir Singh, whereby, the partition of joint land

measuring 81 Kanals-5 Marlas, situated in Village Hayatpur, was sought.

In the said partition proceedings, mode of partition came to be approved on

Page 9 of 16

16.11.2017 and thereafter, naksha bey was approved vide order dated

16.01.2018 after the dismissal of objections to naksha bey submitted by

present respondents No.2 to 6 as well as the objections submitted by

respondent No.7. The appeals filed against the order dated 16.01.2018 were

dismissed by the learned Collector, vide order dated 03.05.2018 and

thereafter, the partition proceedings came to be finalized upon drawing of

sanad takseem dated 15.05.2018.

8. Apparently, respondents No.2 to 6 as well as respondent No.7

preferred revision petitions before the learned Commissioner, Gurugram,

challenging the partition proceedings, which were clearly not maintainable,

in view of the law settled by this Court in the case of Amar Khan and

others vs State of Punjab and others, 2009(1) RCR(Civil) 741, wherein, it

was held that after the issuance of sanad takseem, the only remedy

available to an aggrieved party is to either prefer a revision petition before

the learned Financial Commissioner under Section 16 of the Land Revenue

Act, or by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, before the High Court.

9. Evidently, the learned Commissioner, Gurugram w rongly

assumed jurisdiction in the matter and passed an order dated 29.05.2018;

staying the operation of the impugned order therein.

10. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 29.05.2018 passed

by the learned Divisional Commissioner, respondent No.8 (predecessor-in-

interest of the present petitioner) preferred two revision petitions i.e. ROR-

73-2021 and ROR-74-2021. Besides the said two revision petitions, another

revision petition i.e. ROR-80-2021, came to be filed by one Rukmani.

10.1 All the said three revision petitions came to be allowed by the

then learned Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 28.07.2021

Page 10 of 16

(Annexure P-5), holding that the revision petitions before the learned

Commissioner, were not maintainable, since they were filed after the

issuance of sanad taksem. Another observation was made that the partition

was as per the sanctioned mode of partition.

11. It is not disputed before this Court that after the afore-said

decision on 28.07.2021 by the then learned Financial Commissioner, two

Exchange Deeds dated 30.07.2021 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) came to be

executed between respondent No.8-Vatika Infracon Pvt. Ltd. and the

present petitioner; whereby the petitioner herein, acquired a part of the land,

which was under partition. It is also not disputed that at the relevant time,

there was no litigation pending at any stage nor any stay was operating.

12. Apparently, in September-2021, respondents No.2 to 6, herein

preferred a revision petition i.e. ROR-352-2021; wherein, they laid

challenge to the order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the learned Assistant

Collector, sanctioning naksha bey and also the order dated 03.05.2018

passed by the learned Collector, whereby, an appeal against the order,

approving naksha bey was dismissed. A further challenge was also made to

the sanad takseem dated 15.05.2018. In the said revision petition

i.e. ROR-352-2021, a status-quo order dated 21.09.2021 (Annexure P-7)

came to be passed.

13. Upon learning about the afore-said revision pe tition

i.e. ROR-352-2021, the present petitioner preferred three applications i.e.

(i) for preponement of hearing in the revision petition (ii) for seeking

impleadment and (iii) another application for vacation of status quo order

dated 21.09.2021 (Annexure P-7). The learned Financial Commissioner,

vide order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure P-13) dismissed the application

filed by the petitioner, seeking impleadment in the revision petition;

Page 11 of 16

whereupon, the petitioner has preferred CWP-24601-2021, wherein, the

operation of the order dated 21.09.2021 (Annexure P-7) and 22.11.2021

(Annexure P-13) was stayed.

14. In my considered view, the fall out of the order dated

03.12.2021 passed by this Court in CWP-24601-2021, is that the issue

relating to impleadment of the petitioner as a party in the revision petition,

was pending consideration before this Court and respondents No.2 to 6

were very well aware of the proceedings before this Court as they had also

filed intra-Court appeals i.e. LPA-1244-2021 and LPA-127-2022.

15. Be that as it may, the learned Financial Commissioner, without

awaiting for the final outcome of the afore-said writ petition

i.e. CWP-24601-2021, proceeded to finally decided the revision petition

i.e. ROR-352-2021; whereby, he has set aside the partition proceedings and

has remanded the matter to the learned Assistant Collector, for fresh

decision.

16. On considering the totality of circumstances, I am of the

considered view that once the issue pertaining to impleadment of the

petitioner as a party in the revision petition i.e. ROR-352-2021 was pending

consideration before this Court and this Court, vide order dated 03.12.2021,

had already stayed the status quo order dated 21.09.2021 (Annexure P-7)

passed by the learned Financial Commissioner and also the order dated

22.11.2021 (Annexure P-13); whereby, the learned Financial

Commissioner, had dismissed the application of the petitioner for being

impleaded as a party in the revision petition; the judicial proprietary

demanded that the Financial Commissioner should have stayed his hands

from finally deciding the revision petition (ROR-352-2021).

Page 12 of 16

17. As far as the impleadment of the petitioner as a party in the

revision petition is concerned, suffice it to say that the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India, in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw vs Farida Khatoon,

2005(2) RCR(Civil) 651, had held that the transferee pendente lite can be

added as a proper party if his interest in the subject matter of the suit is

substantial. It was also observed that an alienee would ordinarily be joined

as a party to enable him to protect his interests.

17.1 In Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon, 2005(2) RCR

(Civil) 651; Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

“16. The doctrine of lis pendens applies only where the

lis is pending before a Court. Further pending the suit,

the transferee is not entitled as of right to be made a

party to the suit, though the Court has a discretion to

make him a party. But the transferee pendente lite can

be added as a proper party if his interest in the subject

matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral.

A transferee pendente lite to the extent he has acquired

interest from the defendant is vitally interested in the

litigation, whether the transfer is of the entire interest of

the defendant; the latter having no more interest in the

property may not properly defend the suit. He may

collude with the plaintiff. Hence, though the plaintiff is

under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a

party; under Order 22 Rule 10 an alienee pendente lite

may be joined as party. As already noticed, the Court

has discretion in the matter which must be judicially

exercised and an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a

party to enable him to protect his interests. The Court

has held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in

immovable property is a representative-in-interest of the

party from whom he has acquired that interest. He is

entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings

where the transferee pendente lite is made a party to the

Page 13 of 16

litigation; he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the

merits of the case…”

17.2 In Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash

University, 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 280; Hon'ble Apex Court observed as

under:-

“23. Now we proceed to consider the second question

posed, but before doing so, for better appreciation of the

point involved, it would be appropriate to refer to the

provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code which runs

thus :-

"10. Procedure in case of assignment before final

order in suit. - (1) In other cases of an

assignment, creation or devolution of any interest

during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by

leave of the Court, be continued by or against the

person to or upon whom such interest has come

or devolved.

(2) the attachment of a decree pending an appeal

therefrom shall be deemed to be an interest

entitling the person who procured such

attachment to be benefit of sub-rule (1)."

24. Plain language of rule 10 referred to above does not

suggest that leave can be sought by that person alone

upon whom the interest has devolved. It simply says that

the suit may be continued by the person upon whom

such an interest has devolved and this applies in a case

where the interest of plaintiff devolved. Likewise, in a

case where interest of defendant has devolved, the suit

may be continued against such a person upon whom

interest has devolved, but in either eventuality, for

continuance of the suit against the persons upon whom

the interest has devolved during the pendency of the

suit, leave of the Court has to be obtained. If it is laid

down that leave can be obtained by that person alone

upon whom interest of party to the suit has devolved

Page 14 of 16

during its pendency, then there may be preposterous

results as such a party might not be knowing about the

litigation and consequently not feasible for him to apply

for leave and if a duty is cast upon him then in such an

eventuality he would be bound by the decree even in

cases of failure to apply for leave. As a rule of prudence,

initial duty lies upon the plaintiff to apply for leave in

case the factum of devolution was within his knowledge

or with due diligence could have been known by him.

The person upon whom the interest has devolved may

also apply for such a leave so that this interest may be

properly represented as the original party, if it ceased to

have an interest in the subject matter of dispute by

virtue of devolution of interest upon another person,

may not take interest therein, in ordinary course which

is but natural, or by colluding with the other side. If the

submission of Shri Mishra is accepted, a party upon

whom interest has devolved, upon his failure to apply

for leave, would be deprived from challenging

correctness of the decree by filing a properly constituted

suit on the ground that the original party having lost

interest in the subject of dispute did not properly

prosecute or defend the litigation or, in doing so,

colluded with the adversary. Any other party, in our

view, may also seek leave as for example, where plaintiff

filed a suit for partition and during its pendency he

gifted away his undivided interest in the Mitakshara

Coparcenary in favour of the contesting defendant, in

that event the contesting defendant upon whom the

interest of the original plaintiff has devolved has no

cause of action to prosecute the suit but if there is any

other co-sharer who is supporting the plaintiff, may

have a cause of action to continue with the suit by

getting himself transposed to the category of plaintiff as

it is well settled that in a partition suit every defendant

is plaintiff, provided he has cause of action for seeking

Page 15 of 16

partition. Thus, we do not find any substance in this

submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellant and hold that prayer for leave can be

made not only by the person upon who interest has

devolved, but also by the plaintiff or any other party or

person interested…”

18. In the present case, since the petitioner had acquired a part of

the land, which was the subject matter of partition proceedings from

respondent No.8-Vatika Infracon Pvt. Ltd., vide Exchange Deed dated

30.07.2021 i.e. after the decision of three revision petitions vide order dated

28.07.2021 (Annexure P-5) holding that the partition was as per the

sanctioned mode of partition and at the relevant time, no proceedings

relating to partition were pending at any stage, in my considered view, the

interest of the petitioner in the subject matter of the litigation is substantial

and is, therefore, was required to be added as a proper party so as to enable

him to protect his interest.

19. In view of the above discussion, writ petition bearing

CWP-24601-2021 titled as Adhikaansh Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs Financial

Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and others as well as

CWP-10718-2024 titled as Adhikaansh Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs Financial

Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and others are hereby, partly allowed

and the order dated 21.11.2021 (Annexure P-13 in CWP-24601-2021) and

order dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure P-17 in CWP-10718-2024) are hereby

set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Financial Commissioner

to decide the revision petition (ROR-352-2021) afresh after affording due

opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties, in accordance with law,

by passing a speaking order; within a period of four months from the date

Page 16 of 16

of appearance of the parties before the learned Financial Commissioner,

Haryana.

The parties are directed to appear before the learned Financial

Commissioner, Haryana on 15.04.2025 or any other date, as may be fixed

by the Office of the learned Financial Commissioner.

It is still further directed that till the final decision of the

afore-said revision petition (ROR-352-2021), the parties shall maintain

status quo.

20. Both the writ petitions i.e. CWP-24601-2021 and

CWP-10718-2024, are accordingly, disposed of.

21. Pending application/s, if any, shall also stand closed.

22. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another

connected case.

March 11, 2025 (HARSH BUNGER)

gurpreet JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No