Gurcharan Lal vs Amar Singh And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7773 P&H

L.P.A. NO.710 OF 2021                                                 :{ 1 }:

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH


                                                L.P.A. NO.710 OF 2021
                                                DECIDED ON: 26.07.2022

Gurcharan Lal
                                                    .....APPELLANT


                                  VERSUS


Amar Singh and others
                                                    .....RESPONDENTS


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:    Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate,
            for the appellant.


AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by the

learned Single Judge dated 23.01.2020 (Annexure P-1), whereby writ

petition preferred by the petitioner (appellant herein), challenging order

dated 20.09.2016 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Financial Commissioner,

Haryana, dismissing the second revision petition; order dated 18.07.2011

(Annexure P-12) passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar

(respondent No.4); order dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure P-11) passed by the

Appellate Authority i.e. Collector, Fatehabad-respondent No.3; order dated

22.12.2008 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade,

Fatehabad, whereby naksha kh and Ga were approved in pursuance of order

dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure P-9), whereby naksha bey was approved, has

been dismissed.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the

appellant was not granted any opportunity to file objections to naksha bey,

1 of 3

L.P.A. NO.710 OF 2021 :{ 2 }:

which has been prepared in pursuance of the mode of partition having been

finalized on 17.04.2006. The plots, which have been allotted to the

appellants, are in violation of the mode of partition and that sanad takseem,

which has been issued in pursuance of the naksha kh, thus, cannot sustain.

We have considered the averments made by counsel for the

appellant and with his assistance have gone through the judgment passed by

the learned Single Judge as well as records of the case and the pleadings but

find that counsel for the appellant has made an effort to mislead this Court

and has made a statement, which is contrary to the record qua the fact that

no opportunity has been granted to the appellant for filing objections to the

naksha kh. Perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner dated

18.07.2011 as also the other orders passed by the subordinate authorites

would indicate that the mode of partition was approved on 17.04.2006.

Naksha bey was prepared on that basis and thereafter objections were called

for on 16.07.2008 and 12.08.2008 but no objections were filed to the said

naksha. Under those circumstances, the Assistant Collector IInd Grade,

Fatehabad-respondent No.2 has rightly proceeded to approve the same on

12.08.2008. As a consequence thereof, sanad takseem was issued on

22.12.2008. Once the appellant has not filed any objection to the proposed

naksha bey, the plea of the appellant cannot be accepted and has, therefore,

been rightly rejected by the appellate authority and the two revisional

authorities vide orders dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure P-11), 18.07.2011

(Annexure P-12) and 20.09.2016 (Annexure P-13) respectively. The learned

Single Judge has also taken note of this aspect and has proceeded to agree

with the findings recorded by the authorities. We are also of the same view.

Another reason, which has been assigned for rejecting the writ

2 of 3

L.P.A. NO.710 OF 2021 :{ 3 }:

petition, is that there has been delay on the part of the appellant in

challenging the order dated 20.09.2016 (Annexure P-13) by way of writ

petition filed on 08.01.2020. The explanation, which has been put forth, is

that the counsel who had been conducting the case before the Financial

Commissioner had not intimated them about the dismissal of the revision

petition. The duty has been caste upon the appellate and it is expected of a

prudent person to be vigilant about his rights. While sleeping over his

rights, a litigant cannot be given the benefit merely because the counsel had

not informed him. He himself is required to pursue his case in true earnest,

which in this case the appellant has failed. In any case, we do not find it a

case where equity should be exercised in favour of the appellant.

In view of the above and keeping in view the fact that the

counsel had not stated the correct facts while arguing the case as it was

stated by him that no opportunity was granted to the appellant to file

objections, which fact has been found to be contrary to the record as held

above, we dismiss the present appeal with costs of `20,000/- to be

deposited by the counsel with the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund within

a period of four weeks from today.

                                      (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
                                              JUDGE



                                              (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
26.07.2022                                         JUDGE
khurmi

Whether speaking/reasoned       Yes/No

Whether reportable              Yes/No




                                     3 of 3