ORDER H.C. Disodia, F.G. — Petitioners have filed the instant revision petition against the impugned orders dated 4.5.1999 and 10.11.1997 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and Collector, Sub-Division, Thanesar respectively vide which the order dated 30.6.1997 of the Assistant Collector, Thanesar approving the Naksha ‘Bey’ has been set aside. 2. Facts of case, in brief, are that Leela Singh etc. the present respondents, moved an application before the Assistant Collector, Thanesar on 9.8.1989 for partition of land measuring 205 kanal 4 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 142, 156 & 143/1, Khatauni No. 193, 194 & 195/1 situated in village Lukhi, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. The Assistant Collector vide his order dated 30.3.1995 confirmed Naksha ‘Bey’ which was challenged in appeal before the Collector, Sub-division, Thanesar by the present petitioners. The Collector, Sub-Division, Thanesar vide his order dated 26.7.1995 set aside the order dated 30.3.1995 and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector, Thanesar saying that the impugned order dated 30.3.1995 was not a speaking one and also issued directions to consider the ‘jamabandi’ for the year 1990-91 while deciding the partition. The Assistant Collector, Thanesar, vide his order dated 9.2.1996, again approved the same Naksha ‘Bey’ which was confirmed on 30.5.1995 but this order was again challenged in appeal before the Collector who vide his order dated 24.6.1996 again remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector with specific directions to pass a speaking order after hearing both the parties and considering the ‘jamabandis’ for the years 1985-86 and 1990-91. The Assistant Collector again approved Naksha ‘Bey’ vide his order dated 30.6.1997 which was challenged by the present respondents Leela Singh etc. in appeal before the Collector, who vide his order dated 10.11.1997 accepted the appeal. However, the present petitioners challenged the order dated 10.11.1997 passed by the Collector, Sub-division before the Divisional Commissioner who vide his order dated 4.5.1999 affirmed the order passed by the Collector, Sub-division. Aggrieved with both the above orders of the Collector as well as the Divisional Commissioner, the instant revision petition has been preferred in this court. 3. Shri Sanjiv Gupta, Id. counsel for the petitioners has argued that the orders passed by the courts below are erroneous and suffer from manifest illegalities as the joint partition qua three khewats is not maintainable. 3. Shri Sanjiv Gupta, Id. counsel for the petitioners has argued that the orders passed by the courts below are erroneous and suffer from manifest illegalities as the joint partition qua three khewats is not maintainable. He also questioned the validity of Naksha ‘Bey’ as no opportunity of raising objections to the petitioner was ever provided. According to the Id. counsel, the proceedings approving the Naksha ‘A’ and proceedings thereafter, are not in consonance with the mode of partition. Another issue raised by the Id. counsel is that the orders dated 26.7.1995 and 24.6.1996 passed by the Collector, Sub­division vide which the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Collector, were never challenged and these orders had attained finality and therefore, the order dated 10.11.1997 passed by the Collector tantamounts to reviewing these two orders for which he was not competent. Lastly, the Id. counsel reiterated that the Assistant Collector has failed miserably in complying with the directions of his superior authority and the impugned order dated 30.6.1997 passed by him is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. On behalf of the respondents, it was argued that the revision petition is not maintainable as second revision is not permissible under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. It was contended further that objections were raised neither at the time of passing Naksha ‘A’ nor at the time of approving Naksha ‘Zeem’. Moreover, it was contended further that when the application for partition was filed, ‘jamabandi’ for the year 1985-86 only was in existence and therefore, ‘jamabandis’ of subsequent years cannot be considered while finalizing the partition proceedings and judgment reported in 1993-PLJ-Page 348 was relied upon to substantiate the contention. Finally, it was stressed that the revision petition deserves to be dismissed as partition proceedings already stand finalised. 5. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and have also carefully gone through the record. The grievance of the petitioners is that after moving of the application for partition, they purchased land which has been depicted and incorporated in the ‘jamabandi’ for the year 1990-91 but the Assistant Collector has failed to consider this ‘jamabandi’ while deciding the partition despite specific directions from the superior authority. The grievance of the petitioners is that after moving of the application for partition, they purchased land which has been depicted and incorporated in the ‘jamabandi’ for the year 1990-91 but the Assistant Collector has failed to consider this ‘jamabandi’ while deciding the partition despite specific directions from the superior authority. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to get 104 kanals of land as against 83 kanals 19 marlas allotted to them by the Assistant Collector vide his order dated 9.2.1996. This claim of the petitioners has not been considered/adjudicated at the level of the Assistant Collector. 6. Shri S.P. Khetrapal and Shri O.P.S. Tanwar, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents, at the outset, contended that the revision petition is not maintainable as a second revision under Section 16 of too Punjab Land Revenue Act is barred. This contention of the learned counsels is unfounded and without any merits as Section 16(1) (a) of the Act provides vast powers to the Financial commissioner to rectify any illegality or irregularity perpetuated any time. Otherwise also, the instant revision petition is not a second revision as the matter decided by the Divisional Commissioner was an appeal against the order of the Collector. Their plea that the revision petition is also not maintainable on account of the fact that no objections were raised while passing Naksha ‘A’ and Naksha ‘Zeem’, is also without any merits. From the perusal of the record, it becomes apparent that there is no order of the trial court (Assistant Collector) on record to suggest that objections were ever invited from the parties on Naksha ‘A’. 7. As per record, it is also made out that after passing Naksha ‘Bey’ by the Assistant Collector on 30.3.1995 and again on 9.2.1996, these orders were challenged in appeal before the Collector and on both the occasions the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Collector by the Collector vide his orders dated 26.7.1995 and 24.6.1996 with specific directions. However, the Assistant Collector failed to comply with these directions and on both the occasions no speaking orders were passed by him. Moreover, the orders dated 26.7.1995 and dated 24.6.1996 were not challenged by either of the parties in revision or in appeal and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that these orders attained finality, gets vindicated. However, the Assistant Collector failed to comply with these directions and on both the occasions no speaking orders were passed by him. Moreover, the orders dated 26.7.1995 and dated 24.6.1996 were not challenged by either of the parties in revision or in appeal and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that these orders attained finality, gets vindicated. However, when the matter came up before the Collector in appeal after passing the impugned order dated 30.6.1997 by the Assistant Collector, the Collector accepted the appeal by ignoring the earlier two orders of the Collector which had attained finality. In my opinion, the order dated 10.11.1997 passed by the Collector is thus without jurisdiction in as much as the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction as he had no power to review the earlier orders in the absence of any petition in appeal before him. Since the Commissioner in revision has affirmed the order of the Collector, the order dated 4.5.1999 passed by him also becomes perverse. 8. It has been stressed on behalf of the respondents that Naksha ‘Zeem’ has already been approved and the partition proceedings are already complete and therefore the claim of the petitioners cannot be considered. A perusal of the record depicts that though Naksha ‘Zeem’ has been approved but ‘Sanad Taksheem’ has not been issued and possession of the land has also not been delivered so far and, therefore, the partition proceedings are still incomplete. 9. In view of the above, the order dated 30.6.1997 passed by the Assistant Collector, the order dated 10.11.1997 passed by the Collector, Sub Division, Thanesar and the order dated 4.5.1999 of the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assistant Collector (Tehsildar, Thanesar) to decide the partition afresh, after giving due opportunity to both the sides and keeping in view the directions contained in the two orders of the Collector dated 26.7.1995 and 24.6.1996. Before parting with the order, it is made clear that this matter has been pending since 1989 and therefore, the Assistant Collector is directed to make every endeavor to finalise the partition proceedings within a time bound manner and not later than four months by giving short dates, after the receipt of a. copy of this order. Both the parties be directed to appear before the Assistant Collector (Tehsildar, Thanesar) on 7.8.2006. To be communicated. 10. Both the parties be directed to appear before the Assistant Collector (Tehsildar, Thanesar) on 7.8.2006. To be communicated. 10. Petition allowed. ————————