Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljinder Singh And Another vs Santokh Singh And Others on 6 March, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032413
CWP-5243-2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:032413
121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-5243-2024
Date of decision : 06.03.2024
Baljinder Singh and another .....Petitioners
versus
Santosh Singh and others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present :- Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bokolia, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate
for the caveators-respondents.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the impugned
order dated 11.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Financial
Commissioner, Punjab vide which the revision petitions bearing
No.ROR/178/2021 and ROR No.492/2021 filed by the petitioners, have
been wrongly dismissed and the impugned orders dated 10.02.2021
(Annexure P-2) passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Talwandi
Sabo, District Bathinda vide which the appeal filed by the petitioners
against the order dated 06.11.2020 was wrongly dismissed and impugned
order dated 06.11.2020 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Assistant
Collector Ist Grade, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda vide which Naksha
Bey has been wrongly sanctioned in the partition case bearing No.291
titled as Baljinder Singh and others Vs. Santokh Singh and others and
impugned order dated 18.12.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned
Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Talwandi Sabo pertaining to land measuring
164 kanals 7 marlas bearing Khewat No.73 Khatoni No.160 Khasra
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032413
CWP-5243-2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:032413
No.109/2 (10-10), 110/2 (11-13), 111/12(11-8), 112/2 (11-8), 113/2(9-7),
308/1 (21-5), 840/3 (24-5), 841/2 (11-0), 842/1 (18-15), 843/2 (21-14),
844/2 (13-2) situated at Village Behman Kaur Singh, Tehsil Talwandi
Sabo, District Bathinda, which are illegal arbitrary and contrary to the
mode of partition dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure P-6) wherein it is
mentioned that the partition shall be made on the basis of the respective
possession of the parties and the impugned sanad taksim wrongly issued
by learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Talwandi Sabo District Bathinda
on 10.01.2024 (Annexure P-5). Further prayer has been made for
remanding back the case before the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade
for deciding the naksha bey and naksha jeem afresh in accordance with
sanctioned mode of partition deed dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure P-6) and
as per the respective possession of the parties.
Petitioners earlier approached this Court by way of filing
CWP-2898-2024 wherein the same order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the
learned Financial Commissioner was assailed. However, as the sanad
taksim was issued, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for
withdrawal of that writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to approach
the learned Financial Commissioner by way of filing the revision petition
in accordance with law. Thus, that petition was allowed to be dismissed as
withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 22.02.2024 with liberty to the
petitioners as prayed for.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in the present case had
impugned the orders dated 11.12.2023 passed by the learned Financial
Commissioner; 10.02.2021 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Talwandi; 06.11.2020 & 18.12.2020 passed by learned Assistant Collector
Ist Grade, Talwandi Sabo. The sanad taksim issued on 10.01.2024 has
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032413
CWP-5243-2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:032413
also been assailed by way of the present petition.
Learned counsel for the caveators-respondents has opposed
the maintainability of this petition as the earlier writ petition i.e. CWP-
2898-2024 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 22.02.2024
wherein the petitioners had withdrawn the petition with liberty to the
petitioners to file the revision petition before the learned Financial
Commissioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that in view of the judgment titled as Ranbir Singh Vs. Financial
Commissioner, Haryana and others passed in CWP-7419-2005 decided
on 23.05.2005, the writ petition is maintainable after issuance of the
sanad taksim.
Heard. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is apparent that the Hon'ble Division Bench in Ranbir Singh's
case (supra) had observed in Para 9 of the judgment as follows:-
"We have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the
pleadings, as also the impugned orders. It is no doubt true
that the Punjab Land Revenue Act does not provide a
remedy against the final order of partition, which is
concluded by the drawing up of the "sanad takseem".
However, as has been held in Raja Ram @ Rajender and
another Vs. Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector, IInd Grade,
Hisar and others, 2001(2) RCR(Civil) 739 (P&H):2001(1)
PLJ 1, the final order of partition can be impugned by
filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India."
It has been observed by the Hon'ble Division Bench that
though the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can
be filed however, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, this Court would confine itself to examine any
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032413
CWP-5243-2024 -4- 2024:PHHC:032413
legal infirmity in the proceedings and the examination of the findings on
the facts would be beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. However, counsel
for the petitioners has vehemently assailed the impugned order passed on
the basis of the facts of the case which is beyond the jurisdiction of the
writ Court. Even otherwise, on coming to know about the issuance of
sanad taksim, learned counsel for the petitioner had withdrawn the earlier
petition to avail their remedy of filing the revision petition before the
learned Financial Commissioner but that remedy they have not availed.
Thus, this Court does not find any force in the arguments raised by
counsel for the petitioners and hence, this Court finds that the present
petition is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is hereby
dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to avail their
remedies as granted by this Court while disposing of the earlier petition
i.e. CWP-2898-2024 vide order dated 22.02.2024.
( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
06.03.2024 JUDGE
m. sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032413
4 of 4
