Dismissed

Baljit Singh v. Stateof Hy.Etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Sept 2012CWP/11419/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging revenue orders in land partition proceedings. The petitioner alleged illegal allotment of lower quality land and lack of access passages. The court held it would not re-appreciate evidence and upheld the revenue authorities' concurrent findings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders upholding the land partition were dismissed as there was no merit in the petition.

Baljit Singh Vs Stateof Hy.Etc. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.11419 of 2004

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.11419 of 2004 Date of decision:- 14.09.2012

Baljit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON

¶11

Present:Mr. V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Sudhir Makkar,Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 5.

¶13

Mr. D.S. Malik, Advocate for respondent No.6.

¶14

S.S. SARON J.

¶15

The civil writ petition has been filed by Baljit Singh (petitioner) under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 25.07.2002 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Thanesar (respondent No.5) and the order dated 19.05.2004 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala (respondent No.3) and for directing the official respondents to maintain status quo in terms of the order dated 09.06.1998 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.2).

¶16

The petitioner-Baljit singh is the grandson of Jawahar Singh. Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) is the son of Jawahar

¶17

CWP No.11419 of 2004

¶18

-2-

¶19

Singh. According to the petitioner-Baljit Singh, he served in the Indian Army for fifteen years and thereafter retired on superannuation. There are 39 parties who are co-related through their ancestors i.e. grand-father. They had common land before partition. In the absence of the petitioner, it is alleged that all the 39 co-sharers of the joint land partitioned the land. Khasra No.1161 and some portion of land from Khasra Nos.1156/2 and 1162/1 as per 'Naksha Bey' (Annexure P1) prepared by the revenue authorities came to the share of Manphool Singh (respondent No.6). The said land in the aforesaid Khasra numbers was being cultivated by Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) and his ancestors for the last 40 years. Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) and other co-sharers moved an application to the Tehsildar, Thanesar that the land which was being cultivated by them should remain intact in the partition proceedings. The Assitant Collector Ist Grade, Thanesar (respondent No.5) vide order dated 27.01.1995 (Annexure P-2) started division of land measuring 1312 kanals 6 marlas in village Sudhpur, Tehsil Thanesar. It was inter alia recorded in the said order (Annexure P-2) that the division of land would be made by keeping the possession intact and if there was shortage, it would be removed keeping in view the area. The petitioner was allotted 4 acres land, which according to the petitioner was allotted in his absence and was 'kallar' land. He was allotted land comprised in Khasra Nos.1168, 1167, 1166 and 1162/2. Land in Khasra No.1161 was allotted to Manphool Singh (respondent No.6). The petitioner-Baljit Singh was

¶20

CWP No.11419 of 2004

¶21

-3-

¶22

satisfied with this partition and he had no grudge against any relative. Thereafter Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) moved an application to the Assistant Collector Grade II, Thanesar for handing over Killa No.1161 which was also 'kallar' land with the petitioner. The Assistant Collector Grade II decided the matter in favour of the petitioner and ordered that status quo should be maintained. Thereafter, Manphool Singh (respondent No.6), however, filed an appeal before the District Collector, Kurukshetra (respondent No.4) who set aside the order of the Assitant Collector Grade II. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala (respondent No.3) who also decided the matter in favour of the petitioner. Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) then filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.2) who after hearing the parties found no merit in the objections filed by Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) who was petitioner No.4 before the Financial Commissioner. It was, however, ordered that the land in Khasra No.451 would not be for Hukam Singh only but for all concerned co-sharers. Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) along with others then filed CWP No.18570 of 1998 in this Court. This Court vide order dated 14.02.2002 observed that the parties were at variance with regard to the sanctity of the site plan produced by them. It was not possible to determine the matter without knowing the factual position at the spot. The parties were agreed that the matter be remitted to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Thanesar (respondent No.5) who after examining the site

¶23

CWP No.11419 of 2004

¶24

-4-

¶25

plan produced by the parties was to pass a fresh order. Accordingly, all the impugned orders were quashed and the case was remitted to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Thanesar (respondent No.5) to hear the parties and pass a fresh order.

¶26

The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Thanesar (respondent No.5) vide order dated 25.07.2002 (Annexure P-5) ordered that changes be made qua Baljit Singh - petitioner on the northern side of Khasra Nos.1161, 1162/1 and 1156/2 and Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) be compensated from the Southern side of Khasra No.1156 min and passage from Khasra Nos.1143/2/2 and 1355/2/2. The remaining land was to remain intact. The popular trees that had been planted in the above land were ordered to be given to those who had planted them. Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) dissatisfied with the order dated 25.07.2002 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Thanesar (respondent No.5) filed an appeal before the Collector, Kurukshetra (respondent No.4). The matter was decided against the petitioner. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala (respondent No.3) who also decided the case against the petitioner vide order dated 19.05.2004 (Annexure P-6). It is submitted that in fact the land measuring 5 kanals 12 marlas was in two Khasra numbers i.e. Khasra Nos.1156 and 1162; besides, Khasra No.1161 also pertained to Manphool Singh (respondent No.6). The Tehsildar had allotted Khasra Nos.1161, 1162/1 and 1156/2 to the petitioner. The land in Khasra Nos.1156 and 1155 and

¶27

CWP No.11419 of 2004

¶28

-5-

¶29

some portion in Khasra No.1162 was in possession of the petitioner for the last 40 years. However, the Tehsildar had reversed this position which resulted in loss to the petitioner. The petitioner in fact had been cultivating the said land for the last 40 years whereas Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) had been cultivating the land in Khasra No.1161, which had now been allocated to the petitioner and was of a lower quality. The land of lower quality in Khasra Nos.1168, 1167, 1162 and 1166 was already with the petitioner. In case land in Khasra No.1161 which was 'kallar' land of a lower quality was again allotted to the petitioner, he would be put to irreparable loss and injury forever. Therefore, it is claimed that the respondent authorities in ordering the transfer of land in killa No.1161 ('kallar' land), Killa Nos.1156/2 and 1162 to the petitioner from the land of Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) was totally illegal, unjustified and contrary to law as also against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had already been allotted the land in Khasra Nos.1168/1, 1167, 1166 and 1162/2 which was also 'kallar' land and was allotted with the consent (sic. connivance) of Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) and others in his absence when he was serving in the Indian Army. It is submitted that even then the petitioner was satisfied with the decision and did not raise any objection. However, now Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) had raised objections that Khasra No.1161 which is 'kallar' land and Khasra Nos.1156/1 and 1162/2 should be transferred to the petitioner because this land was partially 'kallar' land and was not according to his choice. It is submitted that no

¶30

CWP No.11419 of 2004

¶31

-6-

¶32

doubt Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) had been cultivating this land for the last 40 years and there was no objection to transfer of this land to the petitioner but it showed arbitrariness and favouritism on the part of the revenue authorities. Therefore, the action of the revenue authorities was illegal and unjustified. It is submitted that the learned Financial Commissioner Revenue, Haryana vide order dated 09.06.1998 (Annexure P-3) had found no merit in the objections raised by Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) and in other petitions. Therefore, the status quo in terms of the said order (Annexure P3) is liable to be maintained and the order dated 19.05.2004 (Annexure P-6) of the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. (respondent No.3) may be set aside and the possession of the land be kept intact.

¶33

On notice, reply has been filed by Manphool Singh (respondent No.6). It is stated that the petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court. In the presence of both the parties, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Thanesar (respondent No.5) inspected the land at the spot and prepared 'Naksha Bey' by concluding that land in Khasra Nos.1161, 1162/1 and 1156/2 on the Southern side be allotted to the petitioner and the area of Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) be completed from the Northern side of Khasra Nos.1156, 1155 min and land in Khasra Nos.1144/2. 1327/1, 1332/2, 1341/2, 1345/2/2 and 1355/2/2 pertaining to the 'Rasta' (passage) be kept intact. This changed 'Naksha Bey' was prepared by the Girdawar Halqa in the presence of both the parties. The

¶34

CWP No.11419 of 2004

¶35

-7-

¶36

petitioner did not object with regard to the change of 'Naksha Bey' at the time of its prepartion by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Thanesar (respondent No.5) at any stage. The previous orders passed by the different revenue authorities upto Financial Commissioner level had been quashed by this Court vide order dated 14.02.2005 passed in CWP No.18570 of 1998 and CWP No.18612 of 1998 by remanding the case to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Thanesar (respondent No.5) to pass a fresh order after hearing both the parties. After hearing both the parties, a fresh 'Naksha Bey' was prepared by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Thanesar (respondent No.5) and partition was ordered accordingly. In terms of the said order dated 25.07.2002 (Annexure P-5), it was ordered that 'Naksha Bey' be changed by allotting land in Khasra Nos.1161, 1162/1 and 1156/2 from the Southern side to Baljit Singh (petitioner) and the area of Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) be completed from the Northern side of Khasra Nos.1156 and 1155 min. Besides, a rasta (passage) was ordered to be kept intact in Khasra Nos.1143/2, 1327/1, 1332/2, 1343/2, 1345/2/2 and 1355/2/2. The girdawar Halqa (Kanungo) it was ordered be issued a letter asking him to prepare the changed 'Naksha Bey' and send it to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Thanesar (respondent No.5). Feeling aggrieved, both the parties filed an appeal before the Collector, Thanesar (respondent No.4) against the order dated 25.07.2002 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Thanesar (respondent No.5). The learned Collector, Thanesar (respondent No.4) clubbed both the

¶37

CWP No.11419 of 2004

¶38

-8-

¶39

appeals and passed a detailed order dated 13.02.2003 (Annexure R- 2). The said order had knowingly not been annexed by the petitioner. The Collector, Thanesar (respondent No.4) in his order dated 13.02.2003 (Annexure R-2) had inter alia observed that the rasta (passage) provided to 'kurrah' of Baljit Singh (petitioner) from Khasra Nos.1143, 1327, 1332, 1343, 1345/2 and 1355/2 was totally wrong and there was no justification because too much land was wasted by doing so. In fact 'rasta' (passage) could have been provided from only one Khasra No.1169 to connect the 'Kurrah' of Baljit Singh (petitioner) to the 'Gohar'; besides, there was another 'rasta' (passage) of two 'Gathas' on the Southern side to another 'rasta' (passage) of two 'Gathas' on the Southern side of the 'kurrah' of Baljit Singh (petitioner), which he had been using from the very beginning. This had been left by Amar Singh (sic. Ami Singh) etc. and there was an entry in the revenue record of this 'rasta' (passage). Baljit Singh (petitioner) had been using this 'rasta' (passage) for the last too much time. Had there been any problem of 'rasta' (passage), the partition case would have been filed by the petitioner whereas the partition proceedings had been initiated by Ami Singh, Hukam Singh etc. The 'rasta' (passage) provided to Baljit Singh (petitioner) by the lower Court had been provided keeping in view the 'pucca' (metalled) road which was not justified. As such the 'rasta' (passage) it was ordered be provided from Khasra No.1169 to the 'kurrah' of Baljit Singh (petitioner). If there was some what less area of Hukam Singh, it was ordered to be completed from the adjoining Khasra No.1140.

¶40

CWP No.11419 of 2004

¶41

-9-

¶42

Shishpal Singh had got proper land. As such the appeal of Ami Singh etc. was accepted. It was observed that the appeal filed by Baljit Singh (petitioner) was baseless. It was wrong to say that Khasra No.1161 given to him was 'kallar' whereas as per the revenue record this land was 'Chahi'. Khasra No.1161 was two killas' away from the 'kurrah' of Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) and he was facing difficulty in cultivation. There was no force found in the plea of Baljit Singh (petitioner). The Girdwari of Khasra No.1161 was in the name of Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) because those were wrong entries of Girdawaris in the joint 'khata'. Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) had produced copy of Girdawari wherein the entries of cultivation of Khasra Nos.1330/2, 13331 and 1332 had been shown in the name of Baljit Singh (petitioner) but this land was not in his (Baljit Singh's) possession. Likewise, the Girdawari of Khasra No.1341 was in the name of Jaipal Singh but he had no possession of this Khasra number. Therefore, keeping in view the possession at the spot, Baljit Singh (petitioner) had rightly been given Khasra No.1161 and in the Eastern side and Southern side of it, there was land of Khasra Nos.1162 and 1168 pertaining to Baljit Singh (petitioner). In terms of the order under appeal to complete the area of Manphool Singh (respondent No.6), the land in Khasra Nos.1155 and 1156 towards North which was given to him was justified because as per criteria of partition, the difference is to be completed from the adjoining area. The appeal of Baljit Singh (petitioner) was held to be baseless and accordingly rejected. The

¶43

CWP No.11419 of 2004

¶44

-10-

¶45

land of all the 4 acres that had been allotted to the petitioner, it is submitted, is fertile 'Chahi' land and is equal to the other land which is proved from the Khasra Girdawari (Annexure R-1). From the said Khasra girdawari Kharif and Rabi crops for the years 2000-01, 200102, 2002-03 and 2003-04 are standing in the above 'killa' numbers. Therefore, it is submitted that the case set up by the petitioner is devoid of merit.

¶46

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The primary dispute in the case relates to the allottment of land in Khasra No.1161 to the petitioner; besides, it has been alleged the land allotted to him is 'kallar' land. The petitioner in the connected writ petition i.e. CWP No.10523 of 2004 which has been decided today has placed on record the site plan (Annexure P11) therein. A perusal of the said site plan shows that in fact the petitioner had been claiming a passage through the land of Hukam singh comprised in Khasra Nos.1143, 1327, 1332, 1343 and 1345/2. The Revenue authorities after consideration of the claim held that too much of land would be utilized and wasted for providing passage to Baljit Singh (petitioner) through the said Khasra numbers; besides, merely because by providing a passage to the said land, he gets access to the main road was no ground to allot him the said passage. The petitioner had claimed in the said connected writ petition that he had been using the passage for the last 40 years. This Court appointed a Commissioner who went to the spot and prepared a report with a site plan and also took photographs of the site and came to the

¶47

CWP No.11419 of 2004

¶48

-11-

¶49

conclusion that no such passage had existed. Therefore, the petitioner in order to get an access to his land was given Khasra No.1169. The Collector, Thanesar (respondent No.4) in his order dated 13.02.2003 (Annexure R-2) has found the appeal of Baljit Singh (petitioner) to be baseless. It was as a matter of fact held that the land comprised in Khasra No.1161 was 'Chahi' land. The primary grievance of the petitioner was that the petitioner had been given 'kallar' (fallow) land. This has been held to be disproved from the revenue records submitted by Manphool Singh (respondent No.6). It was held by the Collector, Thanesar (respondent No.4) that Baljit Singh (petitioner) had rightly been given land in Khasra No.1161 and in the eastern side and southern side of it, there was land of Khasra Nos.1162 and 1168 pertaining to Baljit Singh (petitioner). To complete the area of Manphool Singh (respondent No.6) in terms of the order under appeal, the land in Khasra Nos.1155 and 1156 towards the North was given to him (Manphool Singh) which was held to be justified because as per criteria of partition, the difference was to be completed from the adjoining area. There is no challenge to the order dated 13.02.2003 (Annexure R-2) passed by the Collector, Thanesar (respondent No.4). In fact the said order has not even been placed on record by the petitioner but is placed on record by Manphool Singh (respondent No.6). Therefore, the land in Khasra No.1161 is liable to be kept intact as has been held by the revenue authorities. This Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction is not to re-appreciate the evidence and material on record and on that

¶50

CWP No.11419 of 2004

¶51

-12-

¶52

basis dislodge the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the revenue authorities particularly when such findings could have been reasonably arrived and are not shown to be in any manner illegal or perverse.

¶53

No ground for interference with the impugned orders has been made out. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶54

( S.S. SARON ) JUDGE

¶55

14.09.2012 A. Kaundal

Baljit Singh v. Stateof Hy.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljit Singh v. Stateof Hy.Etc.

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

M/S New India City Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shashi Yadav and Ors.

Vocational Teacher'S Association Vs State of Pb. & Ors.

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Baljit Singh Vs State Ofhy.

Surakasha Wati and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Prem Singh Vs State of Punjab