Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kumar And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 3 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117420
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-11070-20182018 (O&M)
Date of decision : 03.09.2024
RAM KUMAR AND ANOTHER
...Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
for respondent No.5.
HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India,
India, inter alia
alia,, seeking a writ in the nature
of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 23.07.2015 (Annexure P
P-4),
4),
whereby the objections filed by the petitioners to the proposed Naksha Bay,,
were
re dismissed.
1.2 Petitioners further seek setting aside of an order dated
21.07.2016 (Annexure P-6)
P 6) passed by the learned Collector, Kaliyat,
whereby the appeal of the petitioners against the order dated 23.07.2015
.2015
(Annexure P-4)
P was dismissed.
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117420
1.3 A further prayer has been made by the petitioners for setting
aside the Sanad Takseem dated 13.10.2016 (Annexure P-8) and also the
order dated 16.01.2018 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Financial
Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana, whereby the revision filed by the
petitioners challenging the partition proceedings/orders along with Sanad
Takseem; was dismissed.
2. Briefly, respondent Nos.5 to 7 filed an application for partition
of joint land measuring 291 Kanals - 16 Marlas, situated in Village
Pinjupura. The petitioners appeared in the said partition proceedings and
contested the claim, inter alia, on the plea that the land already stood
partitioned in the year 1986 by way of private partition.
2.1 It appears that the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade,
Kalayat, vide order dated 09.02.2012 (Annexure P-1) sanctioned the mode
of partition and thereafter, the Naksha Bay was called from the Field Staff.
Upon receipt of Naksha Bay from the Field Staff, objections were called.
The petitioners filed their objections to Naksha Bay; however, the same
were rejected by the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kalayat.
2.2 It transpires that the petitioners preferred an appeal before the
learned Collector against the afore-said order, which was allowed and the
matter was remanded to the learned Assistant Collector. Upon remand, a
fresh Naksha Bay was received, to which, the petitioners submitted their
objections, however, the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kalayat,
dismissed the objections filed by the petitioners vide order dated
23.07.2015 (Annexure P-4). A further appeal by the petitioners against the
order dated 23.07.2015 (Annexure P-4) was also dismissed vide order dated
21.07.2016 (Annexure P-6). It transpires that the petitioners preferred a
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117420
further revision before the learned Commissioner, Ambala Division,
Ambala, however, during the pendency of the said revision, Sanad Takseem
dated 13.10.2016 (Annexure P-8) came to be issued, whereupon, the
petitioners withdrew their revision before the learned Commissioner and
thereafter, the petitioners preferred a Revision Petition (ROR No.82 of
2016-17) before the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which was
dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2018 (Annexure P-10).
2.3 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the petitioners have
preferred the present writ petition before this Court, for the relief/s, as
noticed here-in-above.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the partition
has been carried out against the sanctioned mode of partition, inasmuch as
that the principles of consolidation of holdings have been violated. It is
further submitted that the area comprised in Rectangle No.43/2 and 43/9
has been given to respondent, whereas, it was required to be given to the
petitioners. It is next submitted that petitioners are in possession of Khasra
No.43//1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 27//23/2, 22/1, 21/2/1 and 21/2/2 and that they
have spent about Rs.20 lacs on the improvement of such holdings but in
partition, these khasra Nos. had not been given to the petitioners. It is also
contended that petitioners should have been given land comprised in
Khasra No.43//15/1, 15/2, 16, 25 and 42//6, 9, 10, 11/1 so that his land is
provided canal irrigation. Accordingly, it is contended that the possession
of the parties has been disturbed, which is in violation of the sanctioned
mode of partition.
3.1 With the afore-said submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioners prayed that the impugned orders/sanad takseem be set aside and
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117420
the matter be remanded to the learned Assistant Collector, for afresh
decision.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to
7 has opposed the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the
petitioners by submitting that the partition has been carried out in
accordance with the sanctioned mode of partition and there has been no
violation thereof. It is submitted that respondent No.5 to 7 have been
litigating for the last more than ten years for their separate block of land,
however, the petitioners are intentionally delaying the finalization of the
partition proceedings. It is further submitted that there is no illegality or
perversity in the final partition order and no prejudice has been caused to
the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the writ petition has
been made.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
paper-book with their able assistance.
6. Concededly, the petitioners were initially litigating against the
approved Naksha Bay on the plea that their objections to the proposed
Naksha Bay were not considered, however, it appears that during the
pendency of those proceedings initiated by the petitioners against Naksha
Bay, the sanad takseem (Instrument of partition) came to be issued on
13.10.2016 (Annexure P-8) and the revision filed by the petitioners before
the learned Commissioner, against Naksha Bay was withdrawn by them.
Thereafter, the petitioners filed a Revision Petition (ROR No.82 of 2016-
17) before the learned Financial Commissioner, challenging the final
partition proceedings/sanad takseem, however, the same was dismissed
vide impugned order dated 16.01.2018 (Annexure P-10), by holding as
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117420
under :-
"6. I have carefully considered the facts of the
case, have gone through all the documents placed on
record and have given my thoughtful consideration to
the rival contentions of both the parties and my findings
are as under :-
(i) A wrong plea has been taken in ROR that
the instrument of partition was issued on
23.07.2015 itself even before the appeal
was rejected by Ld. Collector on
21.07.2016. Infact, the instrument of
partition has been issued on 13.10.2016 i.e.
much after the dismissal of the appeal by
the Ld. Collector on 21.07.2016 and
therefore, plea of the petitioners in this
regard is not tenable.
(ii) There is concealment of a fact in the ROR.
It was found from record that they had
earlier filed an appeal before the Ld.
Collector who had decided the matter and
passed some directions on 13.02.2017
against which no appeal has been preferred
by any party. The amended Naksha Bay has
been prepared in accordance with the
orders of the Ld. Collector dated
13.02.2017 and this facts has been
mentioned by the Ld. Collector, Kalayat in
his orders dated 21.07.2016. This fact was
not disclosed by the petitioners. Hence, on
this ground alone, ROR is not tenable.
(iii) The petitioners have throughout claimed
that land comprising in Rectangle No.43//2
and 43//9 was required to be given to them
as they had installed Tubewell and
Transformers therein. The Counsel for the
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117420
respondent placed on record a report in
ROR No.80 of 2016-17 as per which,
neither there is any Tubewell nor any
Transformer in these Khasra Nos. Now at
the time of arguments, the counsel for the
petitioners claimed that these Khasra Nos.
were mentioned erroneously and actual
Khasra Nos. are 43//3 and 43//8. No
cognizance of this plea can be taken
because even while filing the Revision
Petition on 22.11.2016, these Kharsra Nos.
were not corrected. If the petitioners had
come to know of the error mentioned in
Khasra Nos. in which Tubewell and
Transformers are located, the correction
should have been done in the ROR and
hence, the plea in this regard is not tenable.
(iv) The plea that it is mandatory on the part of
the Asstt. Collector to carry out physical
verification before ordering partition as
laid down in 1996 PLJ 203 is also not
tenable because even cursory look at this
judgment reveals that this is not any
interpretation of law or rule but it was
rather a direction by the Financial
Commissioner in that particular case to
visit the spot. In any case, it has been
observed that field inspection had been
done by the Asstt. Collector before carrying
out the partition proceedings.
(v) It is surprising that the petitioners have
blamed respondent for not revealing the
fact of issuance of Sanad Takseem before
Ld. Collector but the fact is that same was
issued on 3.10.2016 and an appeal had
been filed by the petitioners on 18.10.2016
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117420
in the Court of Ld. Commissioner. The
petitioners should have been aware of the
issuance of Sanad Takseem on 13.10.2016
when they filed the case before Ld.
Commissioner and hence, it is not proper
for them to blame the respondent in this
regard.
(vi) The plea that a private partition had
already been effected in this case is not
tenable because neither same has been
incorporated in the Revenue records nor
any documentary proof in any form has
been furnished evidencing this fact.
In view of the above, it is crystal clear that
the partition proceedings have been carried out by the
Asstt. Collector Ist Grade in accordance with the law
and he had even amended the Naksha Bay in
accordance with the earlier order of Ld. Collector in
appeal dated 13.02.2014 and there is no infirmity or
irregularity as pointed out above. Hence, the Revision
Petition is hereby dismissed."
6.1 A perusal of the above extracted findings returned by the
learned Financial Commissioner, would clearly indicate that all the
objections were duly considered and dealt with.
7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the order
passed by the learned Financial Commissioner and neither, it has been
shown as to in what manner, the final partition is contrary to the sanctioned
mode of partition or which clause of the sanctioned mode of partition has
been violated.
8. That apart, a perusal of Aks Shajra/site plan (Annexure P-11)
attached with the writ petition would show that the partition has been
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117420
carried out in a fair, equitable and justified manner. Further, the petitioners
have also failed to show as to what prejudice has been caused to them with
the final partition carried out in this matter.
9. Keeping in view the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances,
I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is,
accordingly, dismissed.
10. All pending applications (if any) shall also stand closed.
September 03, 2024 (HARSH BUNGER)
gurpreet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
