Punjab-Haryana High Court
Renu Jain vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 6 July, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:086008
2023:PHHC:086008
-1-
CRM-M-45798-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-45798-2018 (O & M)
Date of decision: 06.07.2023
Renu Jain
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. P.S.Jammu, Advcoate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ankita Ahuja, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Jindal, Advocate,
for respondent No.5.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed for issuance of directions to
respondent No.2 to conduct a fair and impartial enquiry into the matter
after the registration of FIR.
2. Short reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4 is taken on
record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
and her mother-Darshna Devi had purchased a plot measuring 1 kanal 1¼
marla situated in village Kalanwali, District Sirsa, by way of registered sale
deed dated 08.02.2005; that the said plot was owned by respondent No.4-
Pardeep Jain, a relative of the petitioner, but he had sold the same to
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:086008
2023:PHHC:086008
CRM-M-45798-2018
respondent No.5-Jagpal Singh; that later on, respondent No.4 had got made
a deal with the petitioner and respondent No.5 had sold the same to the
petitioner, and that Lovleen Jain and Chhinder Singh, Panch had signed the
sale deed as witnesses. It is further contended that however, respondent
No.4 had not allowed the petitioner to get constructed the boundary-wall on
the said plot; that respondents No.4 and 5 in connivance with the above
named witnesses, while playing fraud upon the petitioner, had sold the plot
to him, but in fact, possession of the same was with some other person.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5
submit that the sale deed was executed on 08.02.2005; that application(s)
for demarcation of the property was given on 06.07.2011 to the Deputy
Commissioner, Sirsa, and subsequently to the S.P.Sirsa; that the matter was
inquired into by the concerned authorities; that vide letter dated
26.03.2014, the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, informed the Deputy
Commissioner, Sirsa, that during enquiry, it was found that Darshana Jain
(mother of the petitioner) had purchased a plot measuring 01 kanal 1¼
marla out of khata (22 kanal 5 marla) as a share and mutation of the
aforesaid land had been entered in her name and that the matter was to be
of civil nature. They have further drawn the attention of this Court towards
the letter dated 25.06.2013 (Annexure P-4/3) issued by the Deputy
Commissioner, Sirsa, to the mother of the petitioner, vide which she was
asked to approach the civil court to get the joint khata partitioned. It is
further submitted that in 2017, a suit for partition was filed by the petitioner
and her mother against 97 co-sharers.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:086008
2023:PHHC:086008
CRM-M-45798-2018
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Indisputably, the application filed by the petitioner and her
mother for preparation of final decree was allowed, vide judgment dated
03.09.2022 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Dabwali. The
matter was enquired into by the concerned authorities. During inquiry, it
was found that the mother of the petitioner had purchased the plot out of
joint khata and the matter was to be of civil nature. Furthermore, vide
letter dated 25.06.2013 (Annexure P-4/3), Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa,
asked the mother of the petitioner to approach the civil court to get the joint
khata partitioned.
7. In view of the above, no further orders are called for.
8. Disposed of.
06.07.2023 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:086008
3 of 3
