Dismissed

Tarsem Lal v. Collector Pathankot and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Jul 2011CWP/11046/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the mode of partition regarding a joint holding. The Court held the petitioner lacked locus standi as he failed to disclose his ownership share and did not appear during prolonged proceedings, granting liberty to revisit the order only if his specific share was not allocated.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to approach the Assistant Collector for modification if the mode of partition does not allocate the petitioner's ownership share.

Tarsem Lal Vs Collector Pathankot and Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.11046 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.07.2011

Tarsem Lal

VS.

Collector, Pathankot & Ors. . . . . Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶10

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

¶14

Present: Mr. IPS Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner

¶15

¶16

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶17

(1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2009 and 10.05.2011 (Annexure P3 & P4) passed by the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade and the Collector, Pathankot, respectively, finalizing the Mode of Partition in respect of a joint holding measuring 46 kanals 2 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Kathlaur, Hadbast No.73, Tehsil Pathankot.

¶18

(2). It appears that instead of finding any fault on merits with the Mode of Partition, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority primarily with the grievance that his address was not correctly mentioned in the partition application as a result of which he was neither heard nor

¶19

2 –

¶20

CWP No.11046 of 2011.doc

¶21

his objections considered before finalizing the Mode of Partition.

¶22

(3). The Appellate Authority has declined to interfere with the Mode of Partition after observing that the petitioner failed to appear despite proclamation and that earlier also the Collector had set aside the order of Assistant Collector and the matter was remitted to decide the same afresh but despite the proceedings having remained pending for years, the petitioner did not appear or contest the same.

¶23

(4). In these writ proceedings also, the petitioner has not disclosed as to how much share out of the joint holding measuring 46 kanals 2 marlas is owned by him. Suffice it to mention here that the petitioner can have a locus to agitate only if the mode of partition does not allocate him a specific piece of land to the extent of his ownership. (5). The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner that in case the Mode of Partition does not allocate him land to the extent of his ownership share in the joint holding, he may approach the Assistant

¶24

Collector 1^st Grade, Pathankot for necessary

¶25

modification/clarification in the said Mode of Partition.

¶26

(6). Dasti .

¶27

04.07.2011 (S u r y a K a n t) vishal shonkar Judge

¶28

CWP No.11046 of 2011.doc - 3 –

Tarsem Lal v. Collector Pathankot and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarsem Lal v. Collector Pathankot 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

B.S. Chaudhary Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kitab Kaur Vs Shakuntla Jakhu and Ors.

Mahavir Kalon Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Balbir Singh S/O Dal Singh Vs Financial Commissioner Hry and Ors.

Harjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Suraj Paul Vs State of Punjab & Ors.