JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.:- The present petition is directed against the order dated 23.10.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, dismissing the revision of the petitioner and upholding the orders passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division and Collector, Sub Division, Mansa, vide which the ex-parte order dated 8.10.2004 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Tehsil Mansa, was set aside, remanding the case for deciding afresh after hearing all the parties concerned. 2. Brief facts of the case are that application for partition was filed before Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Mansa. Vide order dated 28.11.2006, Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, approved the Naqsha Zeem prepared by the field staff and ordered that sanad takseem be issued. Respondents no.3 to 6 filed an appeal before the Collector on the ground that they were illegally proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 8.10.2004. They had purchased 16 kanals of land, whereas only 8 kanals was allotted to them, besides the inferior quality of land. Hearing both the parties, the Collector, Sub Division, Mansa, vide his order dated 9.6.2008 (Annexure P-4) accepted the appeal, setting aside the orders passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Grade and remanded the matter for its fresh decision. Dissatisfied, petitioner filed his appeal before the Commissioner, which was dismissed, vide order dated 17.2.2010 (Annexure P-5) and his revision before the Financial Commissioner also failed, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.10.2012 (Annexure P-6). Thus, feeling aggrieved against the above said impugned orders, petitioner has approached this court by way of instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities were contrary to the facts of the case and also against the relevant provisions of law. He further submits that respondents no.3 to 6 were rightly proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 8.10.2004. the Collector, Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner failed to appreciate the true facts of the case, while passing the impugned orders. He finally prays for setting aside the impugned orders allowing the present writ petition. 4. He further submits that respondents no.3 to 6 were rightly proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 8.10.2004. the Collector, Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner failed to appreciate the true facts of the case, while passing the impugned orders. He finally prays for setting aside the impugned orders allowing the present writ petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length, after perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the respondent revenue authorities are factually correct and legally justified, which deserve to be upheld for the following more than one reasons. 5. A combined reading of the impugned orders passed by the respondent revenue authorities would show that the ex-parte order dated 8.10.2004 was illegally passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, thereby violating the basic principle of natural justice. Rightly feeling aggrieved, respondents no.3 to 6 filed their appeal before the Collector, who passed legally sustainable order dated 9.6.2008 (Annexure P-4), setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, remanding the case back with a direction to decide it afresh after hearing both the parties. Similarly, the matter was re-examined by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, who rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, vide order dated 17.2.2010 (Annexure P-5). Relevant operative part of the order passed by the Commissioner, reads as under :- “I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. From the interim orders passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, it stands amply proved that service of respondents no.1 to 4 was not properly effected, because interim order dated 18.5.2004, shows that for the service of the respondents summons were ordered to be issued for 11.6.2004 and the said process remained continue till 8.10.2004. However, it is strange enough to say that in the interim order dated 8.10.2004, it has been mentioned that none of the respondents appeared despite service through affixation and Munadi and accordingly the respondents were proceeded against ex parte. When the respondents were ordered to be served through summons, then how the Munadi was got done in the village could not be explained by the learned counsel for the appellant. When the respondents were ordered to be served through summons, then how the Munadi was got done in the village could not be explained by the learned counsel for the appellant. In these circumstances, it can safely be held that respondents No.1 to 4 have been condemned unheard and as such the orders passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade are hit by the principles of natural justice. Besides this, respondents no.1 to 4 purchased 16 kanals of land, out of which only 8 kanals of land has been given to them in the partition proceedings, which is not justifiable. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 9.6.20008 does not appear to suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Accordingly there is no force in this appeal and as such the same stands dismissed.” 6. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, also heard the parties, considered their rival contentions and came to a just conclusion before passing the impugned order dated 23.10.2012 (Annexure P-6), thereby dismissing the revision of the petitioner. The operative part of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, reads as under :- “ I have carefully considered these contentions and have gone through the record of the case. It does seem that respondents no.1 to 4 have not been allotted land to the full share of their entitlement while finalizing the partition. As per the copy of Naqsha `Irri’ available on the file, they were owners of 8 kanals of land comprised in khasra no.47//4/1 (7-0) and 4/2 (1-0). Similarly they were the owners of another 8 kanals of land comprised in khasra no.47//62-min (0-9) and 7 (7-11). However, after the partition they have been allotted only 8 kanals of land comprised in khasra no.47//4. The partition ordered by the Assistant Collector Grade - 1 clearly therefore could not be sustained. I am also of the view that the rulings cited by the petitioners’ counsel do not serve their case at all since in the present case the respondents had been proceeded against ex parte and obviously did not have any chance to challenge the Mode of Partition or the Naqsha Bey. Hence there is no infirmity in the orders of the Collector and Commissioner. 6. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Hence there is no infirmity in the orders of the Collector and Commissioner. 6. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. It is however, directed that the Assistant Collector Grade 1 may not reopen the partition from the initial stage, but only proceed to allot their full share to the respondents no.5 to 7 by subtracting it from the share of co-owners who might have been allotted excess land.” 7. The only issue that falls for consideration of this court is, whether the respondent revenue authorities have committed any error of law, while setting aside the ex-parte order. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, discussed herein above, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that the answer to the question posed above has to be an emphatic ‘no’. 8. It is the settled proposition of law that nobody should be condemned unheard. Further, nobody should be forced to go home with a grievance that he was not allowed to put up his case, denying an opportunity of being heard. Since the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade has violated the basic rule of audi altrem parterm, while passing the ex-parte order dated 8.10.2004, the respondent revenue authorities i.e. Collector, Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner committed no error of law, while passing their respective impugned orders. 9. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any patent illegality or perversity in any of the impugned orders passed by the respondent revenue authorities recording their concurrent findings of fact. Thus, the impugned orders deserve to be upheld. 10. No other argument was raised. 11. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this court is of the view that the present petition is devoid of any merit and without any substance. Thus, it is liable to be dismissed. No case for interference has been made out. 12. Resultantly, the instant petition stands dismissed. --------0.B.S.0------------ ———————————