***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. –

1. Apart from the factual disputes involved in these writ petitions, a common question of law has arisen which is being adjudicated by this common order.

2. State of Haryana by way of amending Act No.12 of 2017 notified on 10.04.2017 amended Section 16 of Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short '1887 Act') that deals with power to call for, examine and revise proceedings of Revenue officers.

3. Section 16 of the 1887 Act prior to its amendment in the year 2017 is reproduced below:-

“16. Power to call for, examine and revise proceedings of Revenue-officers. -- (1) The Financial Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue officer subordinate to him.

(2) A Commissioner or Collector may call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue officer under his control.

(3) If in any case in which a Collector has called for a record and he is of the opinion that the proceedings taken or order made should be modified or reversed, he shall report the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Commissioner whose decision shall be final.

(4) The Financial Commissioner under sub-section (1), or Commissioner under sub-section (2), in any case called for by himself, may pass such orders as he thinks fit:

Provided that he shall not under this section pass an order reversing or modifying any proceeding or order of a subordinate Revenue-officer and affecting any question of right between private persons without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard:

Provided further that the revisional cases pending before the commencement of the Punjab Land Revenue (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1996, shall be decided by the Financial Commissioner as heretobefore. "

4. The amended provision which now is part of the statute reads as under:-

"16. Power to call for, examine and revise proceedings of Revenue-officer.- (1) The Commissioner may call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by any Revenue-officer under his control and pass such orders, as he thinks fit.

(2) The Collector may also call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by any Revenue-officer under his control and if he is of the opinion that the proceedings taken or order made should be modified or reversed, he shall report the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Commissioner, whose decision shall be final:

Provided that he shall not pass an order reversing or modifying any proceeding or order of a subordinate Revenue-officer and affecting any question of right between private persons without giving them an opportunity of being heard. "

5. The issue before this Court is with regard to the retrospective/prospective effect of the aforesaid amendment and the mode and manner in which it effects the pending revisions. The question was firstly dealt with by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 10182 of 2017 titled as Smt. Rajesh & ors., Vs. The State of Haryana & ors., decided vide order dated 12.05.2017. On the statement made by learned Advocate General, Haryana, the Court observed as under :-

"It is in this aspect of the matter, this Court requested Mr. B.R. Mahajan, A.G., Haryana to apprise this Court about the predicament of such litigants.

The notification is silent with regard to its applicability, thus, in my view, it would apply prospectively. Even otherwise the order of the Collector being merged in the order of the Commissioner has been assailed before the Financial Commissioner and particularly when the petitioner had to challenge the sanad takseem, the power is only with the Financial Commissioner as per Section 16(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and as well as in view of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Amar Khan and others Vs. State of Punjab and others 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 741.

After hearing Mr. Mahajan, I am of the view that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of filing ROR as the notification dated 10.04.2017 would apply prospectively to the new cases instituted seeking partition of the land and not in the matters which are pending adjudication.

Resultantly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file the revision petition. The petitioner is directed to file the ROR in view of the aforementioned observations and in case such revision petition is filed, the Financial Commissioner shall decide the same in accordance with law. "

6. The  issue was again dealt with by this Court in CWP No.19481 of 2022 titled as Ramesh Vs. State of Haryana & ors., decided on 21.11.2022 = (2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17235 = 2022(2) L.A.R. 611, observing as under:-

“10. It is thus evident that before the amendment notified on 10.04.2017, the Financial Commissioner had the jurisdiction to revise order passed by any Subordinate Revenue Officer. In exercise of the said power, he could even revise interim orders and withdraw a case if he found any illegality, irregularity in the pending proceedings or if the same were without jurisdiction. A Commissioner also exercised powers of revision but the Financial Commissioner being a higher official, sanad issued in partition proceedings could only be challenged before him apart from filing of a writ petition as held by this Court in Amar Khan (supra). To interpret un-amended Section 16 of the Act as conferring concurrent jurisdiction would be violative of the principles of interpretation of statutes as it would create confusion among the litigants. Post-amendment, only the Commissioner exercises revisional jurisdiction and the Financial Commissioner has been deprived of the said power. In Smt. Rajesh (supra) as well as Ved Pal (supra), it has been held that amendment dated 10.04.2017 would apply prospectively and would govern only those cases in which partition application was instituted after the said date. In the instant case, the partition application was filed on 25.03.2011 i.e. prior to the enactment of the amending Act No.12 of 2017 and thus, the sanad could only be challenged before the Financial Commissioner. Proceedings initiated before the Commissioner were patently without jurisdiction. The said proceedings have rightly been set aside by the Financial Commissioner by the impugned order and the said order does not call for any interference. The reasons given by the Financial Commissioner are not very happily worded but the final result cannot be faulted. "

7. The aforesaid judgment passed in CWP No.19481 of 2022 was assailed in intra Court appeal. Division Bench in LPA No. 309 of 2023, titled as Ramesh Vs. State of Haryana & ors., vide order dated 29.03.2023 upheld the view formulated by the Single Bench observing as under:-

"So in our view, he ought not to have confirmed the order of the Financial Commissioner dt.01.06.2022 in toto though he is correct insofar as he held that Financial Commissioner was right in holding that the Commissioner, Rohtak had no jurisdiction to entertain the Revision filed by the Petitioner. "

8. Same question again cropped up in CWP No.9810 of 2023 titled as Jagdish & ors. Vs. Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar & ors. A Coordinate Bench vide order dated 19.01.2024 held that the amended provision cannot be made applicable retrospectively, observing as under:-

"On perusal of the same, it is apparent that in the unamended provisions of Section 16 (1) of the Act, the Financial Commissioner had the jurisdiction to entertain the revision filed after the issuance of sanad taksim, however, this Section has been amended which was notified on 10.04.2017. The plain reading of the amended Section would show that after the amendment, power of revision lies with the Commissioner whereas before the same, it was with the Financial Commissioner. As per Rule of interpretation, if there is no ambiguity in the plain reading of the statute, the same cannot be interpreted to give it a different meaning. In the judgment relied upon by the petitioner i.e. Katta Sujatha Reddy and another Vs. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Private Limited and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in Para No.57, which reads as follows:-

"57-In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that ordinarily, the effect of amendment by substitution would be that the earlier provisions would be repealed, and amended provisions would be enacted in place of the earlier provisions from the date of inception of that enactment. However, if the substituted provisions contain any substantive provisions which create new rights, obligations, or take away any vested rights, then such substitution cannot automatically be assumed to have come into force retrospectively. In such cases, the legislature has to expressly provide as to whether such substitution is to be construed retrospectively or not."

Thus, it is evident that the legislature has said nothing expressly that the amendment made would be applicable retrospectively. Hence, the same cannot be made applicable retrospectively on mere assumptions. There is no dispute on the reading of the facts and circumstances of the case that the partition proceedings were initiated prior to the amendment of Section 16 of the Act and thus, provision of Section 16 of the Act as it existed prior to the amendment would be applicable in the present case."

9. Till then the litigants were consistently filing revision petitions before the Financial Commissioner following the dictat of this Court. However, a divergent opinion has been formulated by this Court in CWP No.31057 of 2024 titled as M/s Active Promoters Private Limited & ors., Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & ors. decided on 23.01.2026, observing as under :-

"15. From the perusal of above-quoted amended Section, it is evident that after 10.04.2017, power to revise orders of subordinates is confined to Commissioner. Financial Commissioner is no more authorized to revise orders of his subordinates. For the purposes of aforesaid Section, Financial Commissioner ceases to exist. In the case in hand, the respondents filed revision before Financial Commissioner on 04.01.2024 i.e. much after amendment of Section 16. The amendment of Section 16 was procedural in nature. It did not take away any vested right created in favour of any party. Right of appeal or review or revision is a statutory right. It is neither vested nor fundamental right. The Legislature is empowered to amend procedural provisions qua appeal or review or revision. In case of Section 16, the Legislature did not take away remedy of revision whereas authority was changed. Prior to 10.04.2017, Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner was empowered to revise orders of his subordinates, however, w.e.f. 10.04.2017 it was only Commissioner who was empowered to revise orders of subordinates. The amendment is not retrospective, however, it is retro-active. It is apt to mention here that Section 16 empowers Commissioner to suo motu revise orders of subordinates. It is settled law that appeal is continuation of the suit, however, revision is not continuation of the suit. Remedy of appeal is provided under Section 13 read with Section 118(2) of the Act. The contention of respondents that revision before Financial Commissioner despite amendment in 2017 was maintainable is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. The argument of respondents that revision filed by co-sharers was finally disposed of in 2021, thus, revision could be filed before Financial Commissioner even after amendment of 2017 is not sustainable at all. Power of revision under Section 16 is suo motu power and amendment made in said Section was procedural in nature, thus, revision before Financial Commissioner after 2017 was not maintainable at all.

16. The respondents after 2017 amendment filed revision under Section 16 before Commissioner and thereafter second revision before Financial Commissioner. Filing of second revision, especially when first revision was filed before Commissioner after 2017 amendment, was bad in the eye of law. "

10. Mr. Akshay Jindal, Senior Advocate for respondents No.5 to 8 in CWP-26451-2026 has relied upon Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. Classic Credit Ltd., 2017 SCC Online SC 961 and Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission and another Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, 2013 (4) RCR (Civil) 892 to submit that where an enactment deals with substantive rights, it has to be primarily treated as prospective unless it is given retrospective effect expressly or by necessary intention or implication. He refers to the Amending Act to submit that there being no repealing and saving clause, there was no intent to give the substituted provision retrospective effect. He thus submits that view taken in Mis Active Promoters (supra) needs to be relooked.

11. Per contra, Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate appearing for the petitioners have supported the view formulated by Coordinate Bench in CWP No. 31057 of 2024 C.-submit that the amended provision does not take away the right of revision. It is only the forum that has been altered.

12. Mr. Akshay Jindal, Sr. Advocate for respondents No.5 to 8 has raised another pertinent issue contending that till the date judgment in CWP No. 31057 of 2024 (supra) was pronounced, i.e. 23.01.2026, the uniform view taken by different Benches at different time was that qua  the proceedings initiated prior to the amending Act came into effect, the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities are revisable before the Financial Commissioner. He thus contends that if the judgment passed in Mis Active Promoters (supra) is to be given effect, the same shall have a cascading effect. The entire bunch of revision petitions and the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner after the amendment came into being, shall be rendered without jurisdiction, even though this Court was remanding the matters back to the Financial Commissioner directing them to decide revision petitions afresh.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case.

14. There cannot be any quarrel with the legal proposition laid by the Supreme Court in the case of Securities & Exchange Board (supra) and Himachal Pradesh State Electricity (supra). However, the question is :

a) whether the amending Act has taken away any right vested in the litigant and;

b) what the 'remedy' in the context of the Section 16 means?

15. In the considered opinion of this Court, in CWP No.31057 of 2024 (supra) it has been rightly held that the provision contained under Section 16 of 1887 Act after amendment   not take away the right of revision. It only alters the forum. Revisional powers now stand vested in Commissioner instead of Financial Commissioner. In other words, the amendment has not taken away the right to revision.

16. Unlike appeal, revision is not continuation of suit, thus the expression 'remedy' in the context of Haryana Land Revenue Act, Section 16 of 1887 Act refers to revision and not the original application. Amendment thus has neither taken away right to revision nor has altered the package of remedy i.e. Revision. Thus, this Court finds that vide judgment dated 23.01.2026 (supra) it has been rightly held that after coming into being of amended Section 16 of 1887 Act by dint of Haryana Act No.12 of 2017, it is the Divisional Commissioner who is competent to entertain the revision petitions and not the Financial Commissioner.

17. Having held so, this Court finds that the litigants who were under the belief with regard to maintainability of revision before the Financial Commissioner on the strength of the orders passed by this Court at different times also cannot be left in lurch. In order to tide upon the situation that has arisen, this Court is of the opinion that the following arrangement can resolve the conundrum :

1. That the revision petitions instituted prior to date of decision by this Court in Mis Active Promoters (supra) i.e. 23.01.2026, before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, if decided, shall not be challenged for lack of jurisdiction in the Financial Commissioner. Challenge though shall be entertained on merits but not on account of lack of jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner to entertain the revision petitions;

2. All the revision petitions filed after the Amending Act came into being i.e. 10.04.2017, pending before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana shall be returned to be instituted before the Divisional Commissioner(s) who shall decide the same in accordance with law.

3. No fresh revision petition under Section 16 of the 1887 Act shall be instituted before Financial Commissioner in view of Amending Act of 2017 as interpreted by this Court vide judgment dated 23.01.2026 in Mis Active Promoters (supra).

18. The common question having been answered, the writ petitions are ordered to be listed for arguments on merits on 08.10.2026.

19. A photocopy of this order be placed on file of the connected case.

Order accordingly.

********