This writ petition challenged the validity of partition orders regarding land in Sirsa, arguing lack of compensation for improvements and absence of passage. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding that the trial court had correctly addressed these grounds based on available evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No. 1122 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 1122 of 2012 Date of Decision: January 19, 2012
Girdhari and others.
...Petitioners
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 03.09.2002 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sirsa, orders dated 24.06.2011 (Annexure P/5) and 21.07.2011 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent No.1 – Financial Commissioner.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and others filed an application for partition of land situated in Village Khireka, Tehsil and District Sirsa, on the basis of jamabandi for the year 1995-96 before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Sirsa, on 13.10.1999. After
2
CWP No. 1122 of 2012
completion of various stages of partition, mode of partition was approved. Thereafter, Naksha “Bay” was called. The petitioners raised objections to the Naksha Bay' (Annexure P-1 and P-1/A). In the objections, the main ground of the petitioners is that they have not been provided passage and compensation for improvement made by them to the land under partition. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade dismissed the objections and accepted the Naksha Bay' and passed the final order on partition on 03.09.2002 (Annexure P/2) after hearing the parties. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector, which was accepted vide order dated 25.07.2003 (Annexure P/3) and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector. Aggrieved against the order of the Collector, respondent Nos. 2 to 18 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. Vide order dated 22.10.2007 (Annexure P/4), the Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the private respondents filed revision before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated 24.06.2011 (Annexure P/5) set aside order dated 25.07.2003 passed by the Collector and order dated 22.10.2007 passed by the Commissioner and upheld order dated 03.09.2002 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, but the revision was dismissed without any merit. Thereafter, on the Misc. Application, the later part of order dated 24.06.2011 was corrected by the Financial Commissioner on 21.07.2011 (Annexure P/6) as “ Finding merits in the Revision Petition, the same is accepted” instead of “Finding the Revision Petition without any merit, the same is dismissed.” Both the orders (Annexure P/5 and P/6) reach the same conclusion that orders of the Collector and the Commissioner have been set aside and the order of the
3
CWP No. 1122 of 2012
Assistant Collector 1st Grade has been upheld. However, inadvertently, in Annexure P/5, it was mentioned that “Finding the Revision Petition without any merit, the same is dismissed”, actually it should be recorded as “Finding merits in the Revision Petition, the same is accepted.” Otherwise, there is no change in both the orders, the conclusion remain the same. Hence, this writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
The only objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that while accepting Naksha “Bay”, the compensation qua the improvement has not been made nor the passage has been provided. I am not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade has specifically recorded a finding that passage has been provided. No compensation can be awarded for the improvement as there was no evidence available on the record.
So far as the question of passage is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out to which part of the land, passage has not been provided. The petitioners have not even annexed the site plan whereby Naksha “Bay” has been approved to indicate that the land has not been provided passage. I do not find any merit with the contention of the learned counsel. The Financial Commissioner has also recorded a specific finding that the petitioners have failed to produce the necessary supporting evidence, on the basis of which compensation for the improvement can be assessed. The Financial Commissioner has also also recorded a finding that the Collector has failed to point out to which part of the land, passage has
CWP No. 1122 of 2012 4
not been provided, neither this is mentioned in the objections (Annexure P- 1 and P-1/A), rather the objections are qua only improvement and division of six seesam trees.
I do not find any merit which may warrant interference in the impugned order dated 03.09.2002 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and orders dated 24.06.2011 (Annexure P/5) and dated 21.07.2011 passed by the Financial Commissioner. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine.
January 19, 2012 ( Paramjeet Singh ) vkd Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation for improvement and provision of passage was adequately provided in the partition order.
Whether there was evidence on record to support a claim for compensation regarding land improvements.
Whether the lower authorities failed to justify the approval of the partition scheme due to lack of passage.
Girdhari and others
Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
