Petitioner in writ petition regarding land partition proceedings was relegated to file a civil suit as final sanction had issued, and he failed to disclose prejudice caused by exparte proceedings.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 12623 of 2010
Date of decision : 03.11.2012
Satvir Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab for the State.
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for respondents No. 5 to 13.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The respondents herein moved an application for partition of the land measuring 430 Kanal 13 Marla. The petitioner was impleaded as respondent No. 5 being one of the co-sharer. It is alleged that without effecting proper service on the petitioner, he was proceeded exparte. Naksha 'A' was prepared that too arbitrarily, which was finalised on 06.05.2005. Sanand Taksim was then issued on 08.06.2005. Just two days thereafter, the petitioner learnt about the partition proceedings and filed an appeal before respondent No. 3 on 10.06.2005 challenging the order dated 10.01.2003 and prayed for quashing of the subsequent proceedings thereto. The said
Civil Writ Petition No. 12623 of 2010
-2-
appeal was dismissed on 23.01.2006. Further appeal against this order was dismissed by respondent No. 2 on 30.05.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the above order in the revision petition and the same has also been dismissed on 21.04.2010. The petitioner, accordingly, filed this writ petition.
The primary grievance of the petitioner remains that he was in service of Army and as such was wrongly proceeded exparte without effecting any proper service. Though the counsel for the respondent has referred to certain facts in this case to say that the petitioner was served through his father and was well represented in the partition proceedings but so far the petitioner has not raised any challenge to the final sanand, which was issued in the year 2005.
Once the interim order, which is under challenge in the writ petition as well and was put to challenge before various authorities had merged into final order of partition, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to challenge the final sanand rather than restricting his challenge to the interim order. It would, therefore, be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of filing the civil suit, which certainly is maintainable against final sanand. The petitioner may raise all the pleas including the prejudice, if any, caused to him because of his service having been effected in this manner for which he was proceeded exparte. Counsel for the petitioner was given opportunity to show prejudice caused to him and he pleaded for time to show the prejudice. He was, thus, not found ready to disclose the prejudice, if any, which has resulted to him. It
Civil Writ Petition No. 12623 of 2010
-3-
would be appropriate to plead all these aspects in the civil suit, a remedy to which the petitioner is relegated.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
November 03, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE
Satvir Singh
State of Punjab
Ranjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
