Rajpati vs Financial Commissioner Haryana And ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 8281 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajpati vs Financial Commissioner Haryana And ... on 19 April, 2024

Author: Deepak Sibal

Bench: Deepak Sibal

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052830-DB



LPA-931-2024 (O&M)                    1             2024:PHHC:052830-DB


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH

112                                           LPA-931-2024 (O&M)
                                              Date of decision: 19.04.2024

Rajpati                                                         ....Appellant

                                   Versus

Financial Commissioner Haryana and others

                                                                ...Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

Present:    Mr. Amit Kashyap, Advocate
            for the appellant.

                         *****

DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(ORAL)

The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment

dated 04.04.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing

the appellant's writ petition filed by her to challenge therein the orders of

the Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Commissioner, Karnal Division,

Karnal through which the partition proceedings as ordered by the Assistant

Collector Ist Grade, Pundri had been upheld.

2) After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of

the record as also examining the impugned judgment we find that the

learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition after noticing

that the entire land which was the subject matter of partition and measured

10 kanals and 5 marlas was Nehri land which had been ordered to be

partitioned between the appellant and respondent No.4 in a just and fair

manner. Rather, respondent No.4 had been given less land than his share

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052830-DB

LPA-931-2024 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:052830-DB

and that 1 kanal and 16 marlas of prime land had been given to the appellant

which was abutting the main road.

3) The conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge are

found to be based on the record and reasonable. They warrant no

interference especially when it is not disputed that during the partition

proceedings due process had been followed and that the appellant was not

only served but she had also filed her objections which were duly

considered by the revenue authorities.

4)             Dismissed.

5)             Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand

disposed of.

                                                      (DEEPAK SIBAL)
                                                          JUDGE


                                                (DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
                                                      JUDGE
19.04.2024
Sapna

               Whether reasoned/speaking?             Yes/No
               Whether reportable?                    Yes/No




                                       2 of 2