Jaspal Singh And Anr vs Financial Commissioner ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6510 P&H

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.109                                        CWP-14833-2021 (O&M)
                                                  Date of decision : 11.07.2022

Jaspal Singh and another                                        ..... Petitioners

                                      VERSUS

Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and others            ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL

Present:      Mr. C.S. Bagri, Advocate, for the petitioners.

                                          *****

SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (Oral)

Naksha Bey was approved in the partition proceedings vide

order dated 04.07.2013 and sanad was issued on 19.08.2013. The

petitioners only challenged the mode of partition and Naksha Bey vide ROR

No.31 of 2013-14 which was dismissed vide order dated 17.09.2014.

Consequently, the revision petition was filed challenging the sanad. The

same has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.01.2021 leading

to the filing of the present writ petition.

A perusal of the impugned shows that the grounds taken before

the Financial Commissioner were;

(i) A family partition having taken place in the year 1970 and

thus, a question of title having arisen as family partition has

taken place in the year 1970, the revenue authorities had no

jurisdiction to proceed with the case.

(ii) Partition is contrary to the mode of partition as the

petitioners have been given land in three different khewats.

1 of 4

(iii) Land cannot be effectively cultivated as very little land

has been given close to their house.

(iv) A plot situated in the abadi area has already been included

in the partition and

(v) No question of res judicata arises.

These arguments have been reiterated by learned counsel for

the petitioners.

In support of the private partition, learned counsel for the

petitioners has referred to sale deed dated 10.05.1983 as well as sale deed

dated 17.01.2003. It is his submission that family partition has been

mentioned therein and thus, the authorities below were in error in refusing to

recognise the family partition.

The argument cannot be accepted as all that has been said in the

sale deeds is that a particular khasra number is in possession of the vendor

by virtue of agreement between the parties. There is no reference to an oral

private partition in respect of the entire land. Thus, the Financial

Commissioner was justified in holding that evidence of a family partition

cannot be permitted to be led in the revisional proceedings.

The finding that question of title does not arise in case, an issue

of family partition is raised, is also perfectly legal. The argument to the

contrary is misconceived and is rejected.

Regarding the argument that partition has been carried out

contrary to the mode of partition, it only needs to be said that the argument

has not been supported by the record and thus, it cannot be accepted.

2 of 4

Similarly, there is nothing on record to suggest that gair mumkin land has

also been partitioned.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Division

Bench judgments in Sahib Singh dead (by his Legal Heirs) Vs. The

Financial Commissioner, Haryana Law Finder Doc Id # 14287, Harbhajan

Singh and others Vs. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab,

Chandigarh and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 192708 and Single Bench

judgments in Babu Ram Vs. Banarsi Dass and another, Law Finder Doc Id #

635284, Bhagwan Ram Vs. Brij Lal, Law Finder Doc Id # 19219, Jai Singh

Vs. Smt. Bhanti, Law Finder Doc Id # 2734, Lal Chand Vs. Sunil Kumar

and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 633450 and Mohan Singh Vs. Lachhman

Singh, Law Finder Doc Id # 49587. In addition, reliance has been placed

upon a Single Bench judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in

Khima Ram Vs. Mast Ram, Law Finder Doc Id # 762095 and two orders

passed by the Financial Commissioner (Punjab) in Harbakash Singh Vs.

Bhola Singh etc. Law Finder Doc Id # 51813 and Inderjit Kaur and others

Vs. Avtar Singh and others, Law Finder Doc ID No.966233.

Neither of the aforementioned judgments is applicable to this

case. Sahib Singh (supra) is a case in which finding of family partition

recorded by the authorities below was upheld as it was supported by

evidence. Harbhajan Singh (supra) is a case where family partition was

proved by evidence on record and mode of partition was affirmed in

accordance therewith. Bhagwan Ram (supra) is a case where finding of a

family partition was returned as the co-sharers had admitted the same and

admission being the best piece of evidence. Babu Ram (supra) is a case

where a deed of private partition had been executed and had been proved

3 of 4

by the parties. Jai Singh (supra) is also not applicable as there is no

evidence of gair mumkin land having been partitioned. For the same reason

Lal Chand (supra) is also not applicable. Mohan Singh (supra) is a case

where family partition had been proved by the parties therein by leading

evidence before the civil Court. Reference is being made to Khima Ram

(supra) only for the satisfaction of the learned counsel for the petitioners,

even though, the said judgment is of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and

is not binding on this Court. The case cannot helpful the petitioners as there

is no evidence that gair mumkin land has been partitioned. The remaining

two orders in Harbakash Singh (supra) and Inderjit Kaur (supra) are not

being considered as the same have been passed by the Financial

Commissioner.

The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.

                                                                (SUDHIR MITTAL)
                                                                     JUDGE
11.07.2021
Ramandeep Singh

Whether speaking / reasoned                                        Yes / No
Whether Reportable                                                  Yes/ No




                                     4 of 4