Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardyal Singh Alias Hardayal And ... vs Financial Commissioner ... on 20 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148234-DB
RA-LP-6-2022 & CM-60-LPA-2023
in LPA-279-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RA-LP-6-2022 & CM-60-LPA-2023
in LPA-279-2022
RESERVED ON:01.09.2023
PRONOUNCED ON: 20.11.2023
HARDYAL SINGH @ HARDAYAL
AND ANR. .....APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS
VERSUS
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)
AND ORS. .....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Jasmail Singh Brar, Advocate
for the applicants-appellants.
Mr. B.P.S. Virk, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J
1. The instant review application has been preferred by the
applicants-appellants before this Court under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC to
review the order dated 04.04.2022.
2. Briefly stated, the factual background is through the order dated
14.08.2013, whereby sanad takseem qua the property in dispute was issued
by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade-cum-Naib Tehsildar, Bhiwanigarh,
District Sangrur. Challenge to the same by way of a revision petition, at the
hands of the appellants was negated through the order dated 07.02.2018 by
the Financial Commissioner, Punjab.
3. Both the aforesaid orders were assailed before the learned
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148234-DB
RA-LP-6-2022 & CM-60-LPA-2023
Single Judge of this Court through CWP No.6867 of 2018 titled as
"Hardayal Singh and another versus Financial Commissioner (Revenue)
and others", which was also dismissed on 16.12.2021.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, an intra-
court appeal was preferred by the applicants/appellants inter alia on the
grounds that the shareholders in the two partition applications are not the
same as there are some, who have no share in a particular chunk of land in
one application whereas in the other they are the shareholders; with even a
single shareholder being different in a partition application, the same could
not been clubbed together and, therefore, the process of clubbing up leading
to the passing of final order itself renders the sanad issued on the partition of
the land unsustainable and that the Revisional Authority had also failed to
appreciate that the sanad takseem had been carried out in a hasty manner and
without grant of any opportunity to the applicants/appellants to file their
objections to the proposed sanad takseem.
5. It was the admitted position between the parties that the father
of applicants/appellants had sold his share in the property in question to one
Baljinder Singh son of Ranjit Singh vide sale deed dated 18.06.2010 and,
therefore, the applicants/appellants had no interest in the partition
proceedings.
6. On the above ground and after referring to the conduct of the
applicants/appellants, who choose not to participate in the process of the
partition proceedings as they never raised any objection whatsoever, and
thus, being estopped from taking any plea before the Revisional Authority as
well as the Writ Court, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148234-DB
RA-LP-6-2022 & CM-60-LPA-2023
04.04.2022.
7. Now with an another attempt to have a rehearing of the matter,
the present review application has been filed before this Court on the
following grounds:-
"(i) Because there is an error apparent on the face of
record. Review petitioners are co-owners in total land 87
Bigha 14 Biswa of Khewat no. 46 (subject matter of
partition application file no. 110/AC-1) in their
individual capacity. Petitioners are not claiming this
land through their fathers as they have inherited it from
their grandfather and mutation of inheritance is already
incorporated in the Jamabandi which is the basis of
above said partition application. Review petitioners were
co-owners with their father and others even prior to sale
deed dated 18.06.2010 executed in favour of Respondent
no.3. Findings of the Hon'ble Court that father of the
appellants had sold his share in the property in question
to Baljinder Singh respondent No. 3 vide sale deed dated
18.06.2010, with this, there was no interest left of the
appellants in the proceedings before the Assistant
Collector IInd Grade are not based on the material on
record. Review petitioners are co-owners as such they
have their independent right to challenge Sanad Takseem
and order dated 07.02.2018 passed by the Financial
Commissioner.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148234-DB
RA-LP-6-2022 & CM-60-LPA-2023
(ii) Because review petitioners are aggrieved as another
Partition Application no. 109/AC-1 qua Khewat No. 46
in which review petitioners are not co-owners have been
clubbed with 110/AC-1 in their absence illegally.
Respondent no. 3 has been allotted land in Khewat no. 47
in one chunk. As such share of ownership of review
petitioners have reduced in the land of this Khewat.
Review petitioners cannot get share of ownership in land
of Khewat no. 46 hence they are aggrieved.
(iii) Because there is no malafide on the part of Review
petitioners as they are still owners in possession in their
independent capacity apart from the sale of land by their
father to contesting respondent no.3 vide sale deed dated
18.06.2010. Review petitioners are not harassing
respondent no.3 rather they are being harassed by him.
(iv) Because there are other sufficient reasons as review
petitioners cannot get any passage or water course from
the land in which they are not co-owners. Revenue
officers have no jurisdiction to correct the entries
recorded in the Jamabandi. By clubbing the two Khewats
Jamabandi entries would be changed. Permitting the
order dated 04.04.2022 to stand will lead to failure of
Justice."
8. After hearing learned counsel for the applicants/appellants and
having gone through the judgment passed in LPA-279-2022, which is sought
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148234-DB
RA-LP-6-2022 & CM-60-LPA-2023
to be reviewed on the grounds which have been reproduced hereinabove, we
are of the view that the instant application deserves outright rejection on the
following three accounts, which have already been considered at the time of
passing the order dated 04.04.2022:-
(i) The applicants/appellants lost interest in the partition proceedings in
the light of admitted position that the father had already sold his share out of
the suit property to respondent No.3-Baljinder Singh son of Ranjit Singh
vide sale deed 18.06.2010.
(ii) During the process of partition proceedings, the applicants were duly
served and initially appeared before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade but
later on their own stopped appearing and neither filed nor raised any
objection whatsoever at any stage.
(iii) The conduct of applicants/appellants was also recorded by the bench
while deciding the Letters Patent Appeal observing that it is a case of mala
fide on the part of applicants/appellants, who are left with no interest in the
partition proceedings and are now continuing with the litigation with the
sole motive and object of harassing the respondents by keeping them
entangled in multiple litigation process with the sole idea of delaying the
process of partition.
9. Neither any other ground has been raised seeking review of the
order dated 04.04.2022 nor there is any change of circumstance as the
applicants/appellants have failed to establish any such new fact or position
of law which has not been considered before the LPA Bench earlier.
10. Having examined the submissions and perusing the pleadings,
we are fully convinced that in the order dated 04.04.2022, there is no
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148234-DB
RA-LP-6-2022 & CM-60-LPA-2023
mistake or error apparent on the face of record. To review its own order, this
Court also has to bear in mind that review is by no means an appeal in
disguise whereby only an erroneous decision is reheard or corrected but lies
only where there is a patent error, which observation of ours is also in line
with the dictum of the Apex Court in its judgment titled as "Parsion Devi
versus Sumitri Devi' 1997 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 458"
11. We, therefore, do not find any ground to entertain the instant
review application. Hence, the same stands dismissed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL) (DEEPAK SIBAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
20.11.2023
Poonam negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148234-DB
6 of 6
