Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chameli Devi And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
114
LPA No.771 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: September 12th, 2022
Smt. Chameli Devi and others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN
Present: Mr. Suneel Ranga, Advocate
for the applicant/appellants.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 25.08.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the
appellants for setting aside the order dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure P-13) passed
by the Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal, dismissing the revision
petition, order dated 09.02.2021 (Annexure P-11) passed by the
District Revenue Officer-cum-Collector, Panipat-respondent No.3 dismissing
the appeal, the impugned order dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-9) passed by the
Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Madlauda, Panipat and Naksha
bay (Annexure P-6), has been dismissed. The primary grievance of the
appellants is that the basic principles of partition as well as the mode of
partition have been violated.
2. Briefly the facts are that the private respondents filed an
application for partition of the joint property land on 12.06.2018. On the reply
filed by the appellants to the partition application, Naksha Alf was prepared on
03.06.2019 and the mode of partition was finalized on 16.09.2022. Naksha Bay
was prepared by the lower revenue staff, which was placed before the
Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Madlauda, which was direct
1 of 5
violation of and dehors of mode of partition. Appellants raised objection to
the Naksha Bay which was prepared, to which response was filed by the
private respondents. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade proceeded to reject
the objections vide order dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-9). An appeal was
preferred against the same, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority
vide order dated 09.02.2021 (Annexure P-11), where a plea had been taken
by the appellants that in Naksha Bay, the land has been bifurcated into two
different parts which is against the fundamental of principles of
consolidation and against the interest of agriculture. Upon dismissal of the
appeal, revision petition was preferred by the appellants, which has also
been dismissed vide order dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure P-13) by the
Divisional Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal. Before the learned
Single Judge what was pressed was that the possession of the parties has
been disturbed which is contrary to the standing orders. The learned
Single Judge while dealing with this aspect has mentioned that when the
partition is to be carried out keeping in view the nature of the land, the value
and the location, such disturbance is bound to occur. The Court had,
therefore, refrained itself from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has again reiterated the said
aspect that the mode of partition has been violated as the possession has
been disturbed. Another argument which has been pressed is that the basic
principle of partition has been violated as separate parcels of land have been
granted to the parties, especially the appellants, whereas effort has been
made to grant consolidated chunk of land to the private respondents. More
valuable land has been given to the private respondents vis-a-vis the
2 of 5
appellants and, therefore, the impugned order cannot sustain. Reliance has
also been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Milkha Singh and
others Versus State of Punjab and others 2014 (26) R.C.R. (Civil) 61.
Another plea which has been taken by the counsel for the appellants is that
prejudice has been caused to the appellants by this partition.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for
the appellants and with his assistance, have gone through the pleadings and
the orders passed by the authorities, which have been impugned including
the judgment of learned Single Judge but do not find ourselves in a position
to accept his submissions.
5. The first plea with regard to the mode of partition having been
violated as the possession has been disturbed, suffice it to say that when
partition takes place, where respective shares have to be taken note of
depending upon the price and nature of the land as also the share of the
co-sharers, there is bound to be disturbance of the possession. The mode of
partition as finalized by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Madlauda, on
16.09.2019 reads as follows:-
"1. Total area kite 40 area 245 kanal-1 Marla through
jamabandi year 2014-15 Khewat no.156, Khatoni no.158
situated at village Alupur, Tehsil Madlauda, District Panipat,
is to be partitioned.
2. Separate Qura of the applicant and the separate second
Qura of the Respondent No. 1 and third Qura for the Legal
heirs (a and d) of the Respondent No. 2 will be made
separately.
3. The land which will be spent on khal and paths, will be cut
from the joint land and the rest of the land will be partitioned.
There will be no partition of the uncultivable waste land.
4. Partition land will be share to each Qura keeping in view
the nature and price of the land. The person who is in
3 of 5
possession of the land according to the price and nature, his
share will be completed while keeping in view his possession.
5. If the possession is changed, it should be given at the cost
of fruitful and valuable trees.
6. While making partition lack of Marla-2 Marla land will be
ignored.
7. The proceedings of the partition will be conducted by the
area girdawar with help of area patwari."
6. In the light of these principles, when we have considered
Naksha bay, which has been appended along with the appeal, we are
satisfied that the mode of partition has not been violated as all efforts have
been made to grant the parties their share according to their possession,
price and nature of the land. Even location of the land has also been taken
note of and accordingly, the shares have been granted to the co-sharers.
Care has been taken to provide for khal, rasta (path) and water. The
appellants themselves have admitted before the Revisional Authority that
the value of the land adjoining the village is more. The Assistant Collector
1st Grade, Madlauda, has given the share of land adjoining to the village
according to the share of all the stakeholders. A well reasoned and detailed
order has been passed by the revenue authorities at each stage, which do not
call for any interference as not only the principles of partition but the mode
of partition has been kept in mind and proceeded with in accordance thereto.
7. Reliance upon the judgment of learned Singe Judge in Milkha
Singh's case (supra) by the counsel for the appellants would not help his
cause as the observations made therein as also the conclusions drawn were
based upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case, where
mode of partition had been violated, no passage was provided for
connecting the different parcels of land assigned to the parties and it was
4 of 5
found that the land was uncultivable by the mode of partition. Present is not
the case, where such a situation arises. No prejudice has been caused to the
appellants in the partition.
8. Concurrent findings have been recorded by the revenue
authorities, which orders have been found to be just and reasonable and the
dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge is in accordance
with the facts and circumstances of the case including law which do not call
for any interference by this Court in the present appeal.
9. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.
10. In the light of the dismissal of the appeal, application for stay
i.e. CM No.1846-LPA of 2022 stands disposed of as infructuous.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
September 12th, 2022 (ALOK JAIN)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
5 of 5
