Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kudiya Ram vs Commissioner, Gurugram And Others on 8 December, 2023
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157753
CWP-26825-2023 -1- 2023:PHHC:157753
112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-26825-2023
Decided on 08.12.2023
Kudiya Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
Divisional Commissioner, Gurugram and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the orders dated
02.11.2023 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Commissioner, Gurugram in
Executive Revision Petition No.14 of 2023 as well as the orders dated
13.09.2022, 21.10.2022 and order dated 04.11.2022 (Annexures P-1, P-3 and
P-4) passed by learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Badshahpur, District
Gurugram in partition case No.238/NB of 2022, whereby the partition case
filed by the private respondents who are the property dealers, has been
approved and allowed in a very illegal and arbitrary manner and in violation of
settled rules of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
alongwith respondents No.2 to 5 were co-owners and co-sharer in the
agricultural land situated in Khewat/Khata No.1048/1078 situated in revenue
estate of village Badshahpur, Tehsil Badshahpur, District Gurgaon. He submits
that the whole land was owned by the family of the petitioner, however,
thereafter, the land measuring 5 Kanal 2 Marla was purchased by respondents
No.2 to 5 from the other family members of the petitioner. He submits that
respondents No.2 to 5 filed an application for partition before the Assistant
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157753
CWP-26825-2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:157753
Collector Ist Grade, Badshahpur in the year 2017. He submits that after
receiving notice, the petitioner duly appeared before the Assistant Collector Ist
Grade, Badshahpur and engaged a counsel. However, the counsel did not attend
the proceedings before Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Badshahpur and thus,
defence of the petitioner was struck off. He submits that thus, right of hearing
to the petitioner was forfeited. He submits that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade
sanctioned Naksha Bay which has caused prejudice to the petitioner as valuable
land was given to the private respondents and no passage was provided to the
petitioner for the land given to him in the partition proceedings. He has
submitted that Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Badshahpur without even waiting
mandatory period of 30 days for filing appeal against sanctioning of Naksha
Bay prepared the Sanad Taksim in a hasty manner on 04.11.2022. He has
further submitted that the partition proceedings have been carried out in
violation of the mode of partition as possession of the petitioner was disturbed
and he was given the land of less value. He has submitted that the petitioner
came to know about the illegal partition proceedings in the month of January
2023 when the private respondents tried to dispossess the petitioner from his
peaceful possession in Killa No.5 and thus, the petitioner came to know about
the Sanad Taksim having been issued and hence, he filed revision before the
Commissioner, Gurgaon. He has submitted that the petitioner duly submitted
before the Commissioner that he was given the land of less value on the main
road and his possession was also disturbed. He has submitted that the petitioner
was given less front on the main road as compared to that of private
respondents and thus, a serious prejudice has been caused to him, however, the
learned Commissioner failed to appreciate the same and thus, has illegally
dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 02.11.2023. He has relied upon
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157753
CWP-26825-2023 -3- 2023:PHHC:157753
the judgment of this Court in LPA-1480-2023 titled as M/s Capital Builders,
New Delhi vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, decided on
21.08.2013 by this Court.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the
record, it is apparent that the partition proceedings were initiated by
respondents No.2 to 5. As reflected from the record, notice was issued to the
petitioner and he duly served and engaged a counsel as well. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that though the counsel was
engaged, however, he did not appear before the Court. It is apparent that mode
of partition was also approved but no objection to the same was filed by the
petitioner. Sanad Taksim was issued vide order dated 04.11.2022. There was no
objection filed by the petitioner to the Naksha Bay as well. It is apparent from
the record that the petitioner neither recorded his statement nor produced any
objection to the mode of partition or Naksha Bay. It is further apparent from the
record that mode of partition has also been sanctioned. The petitioner himself
appeared before the authorities on 15.06.2022. Naksha A was approved on
13.09.2022 and no objection was filed by the petitioner to the same. From
perusal of the site plan, it is apparent that all the co-sharers were given land on
the front side. Thus, it is apparent that the partition proceedings were carried
out by following due process wherein the petitioner was duly served. The
partition proceedings were carried out in accordance with the mode of partition.
Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no material illegality in
the partition proceedings.
In all its humility, there is no denial to the law laid down in the
judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, the same are distinguishable.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157753
CWP-26825-2023 -4- 2023:PHHC:157753
Hence, finding no merit in the present petition, the same being devoid of any
merit, is hereby dismissed.
( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
JUDGE
08.12.2023
sharmila
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157753
4 of 4
