Allowed

Antu v. Financial Commissioner and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Oct 2010CWP/4978/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a partition dispute involving land measurement discrepancies, the High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition following a settlement. The impugned partition orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Assistant Collector to execute a fresh Sanad Takseem in accordance with the terms of the compromise.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matter remitted to Assistant Collector to draw fresh Sanad Takseem per compromise within three months.

Antu Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CWP No.4978 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.4978 of 2010 Date of decision:14.10.2010

Antu

..... Petitioner

Versus

The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others ..... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶10

Present: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Girotra, AAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 to 4. Mr.Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for respondents no.5 and 6.

¶11

¶12

RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner impugns orders passed by the revenue officers during partition proceedings and the final order of partition i.e. the Sanad Takseem .

¶14

With the able assistance of counsel for the petitioner and counsel for respondents no.5 and 6, parties have resolved this dispute in terms of a compromise dated 13.10.2010 which has been filed in court today. The compromise is taken on record and assigned mark-A.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for respondents no.5 and 6 state on instructions that the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Nilokheri, may be directed to draw up a fresh Sanad Takseen, in accordance with the terms and conditions setting out in paragraphs no. 1 to 3 of the compromise.

¶16

I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the compromise and am satisfied that parties have resolved their dispute by way of a bonafide compromise Mark-A.

¶17

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, the

¶18

CWP No.4978 of 2010

¶19

-2-

¶20

impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Nilokheri, to draw up a fresh Sanand Takseem in accordance with paragraphs no.1 to 3 of the compromise which read as follows: -

¶21

“1. That the land comprised in Rect.No.62, Killa No.15, 16 and Rect.No.63, Killa No.11, 12, 13/1 and 20/1 is given to the petitioner Antu Ram. If there will be any less area as per the share of petitioner that will be completed in Killa No.6 of Rect.No.62 onwards South.

¶22

2. That the land comprised in Rect.No.62, Killa No.6, 7/1, Rect.No.63, Killa No.8, 9 and 10 is given to the respondents Joginder Singh etc.

¶23

3. That a 2 Karam vide Rasta is given to the respondents Joginder Singh etc. from Killa no.15, 16 of Rect. No.62 towards West. The area of Rasta will be deducted from the share of both the parties.”

¶24

The Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, shall finalise partition proceedings and prepare a fresh Sanad Takseem and distribute the land in accordance with the compromise within three months from receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶25

Disposed of accordingly.

¶26

14.10.2010 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE

Antu v. Financial Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antu v. Financial Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rana Harinder Vs Gunita & Ors.

Surjit Kaur Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors.

Gurmeet Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Baldev Singh and Ors. Vs Pb.State and Ors.

Surinder Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Satavtar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.