Dismissed

Bachna v. Financial Commissioner Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2012CWP/14589/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This disposal of a writ petition concerning partition proceedings held that the plea of abadi disturbance was unproved on record. The court noted that a Sanad Takseem had already been issued in 2002 and no case for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction was established.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's plea for interference in the partition proceedings was dismissed.

Bachna Vs Financial Commissioner Punjab and Ors. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Misc.No.17732 of 2012 & : 1 : Civil Writ Petition No.14589 of 2008

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Date of Decision: December 11, 2012

Bachna

...Petitioner

Versus

Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, Chandigarh & others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶10

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present: Mr.A.P.Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶14

Ms.Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the State.

¶15

Mr.Sherry K.Singla, Advocate, for respondent Nos.5 to 8.

¶16

¶17

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶18

Prayer in the application is to implead the L.Rs. of respondent No.5, who are stated to be already on record and are represented.

¶19

Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 has drawn my attention to the order passed by this court on 2.2.2011 where all the pleas raised by the petitioner were considered and the following order was passed:-

¶20

“Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the first count, contends that the partition proceedings suffer from inherent defect in so much as 1 kanal 1 marla land has been left out from the partition proceedings. On the

¶21

Civil Misc.No.17732 of 2012 & : 2 : Civil Writ Petition No.14589 of 2008

¶22

second count, it has been pleaded that no rasta has been provided to the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra No.34/11/1 of Revenue Estate Village Palasi Nangal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar.

¶23

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.

¶24

Perusal of order Annexure R-2 makes it evident that both the parties entered into an agreement in regard to the partition. In regard to Khasra no.155(1-0), it has been said that the said land be excluded from partition, it falling in abadi area. The first argument addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner is in regard to Khasra No.155(101) and, therefore, the same has to be rejected.

¶25

In regard to the second contention, my attention has been drawn towards Annexure R-3 wherein, the said issue has been dealt with. It transpires that Khasra No.34/11/1 and Khasra No.34/11/2, both, fall to the share of the petitioner. Rasta has been provided to Khasra No.34/11/1 which is right next to Khasra No.34/11/2. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there was no requirement to provide rasta to each and every Khasra number/min Khasra number.

¶26

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure P-4 to say that the partition had been finalized while providing rasta from middle of the land of the petitioner because on the northern portion of the land shown in green, abadi of the petitioner is in existence. Learned counsel contends that by way of partition, the abadi is disturbed. The rasta provided in brown has been removed. Rasta provided in black has been provided as would be evident from page no.26-A. The said site plan, however, do not depict picture from the actual Sajra.

¶27

Civil Misc.No.17732 of 2012 & : 3 : Civil Writ Petition No.14589 of 2008

¶28

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file a document duly certified by Revenue Authorities reflecting the actual facts on ground.

¶29

Adjourned to 28.02.2011, however, subject to `5,000/-as costs to be deposited with High Court Lawyers' Welfare Fund. The needful be done within 2 weeks.”

¶30

Counsel today submits that subsequently notice was issued when he was able to establish that the way the partition has been obtained, the abadi is disturbed. Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, has placed on record Naksha-Bey to show that it is only a different shaded to show the partition and not that it is a rasta. The plea that abadi was disturbed, thus, is just raised and is not proved on record. That being the position, no case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out, especially so when Sanad Takseem in this case stands issued in the year 2002.

¶31

Dismissed.

¶32

December 11, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE

Bachna v. Financial Commissioner Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bachna v. Financial Commissioner Punjab 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

Ramesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Sandesh Kumar Vs Tarlok Singh

Jagdev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Anoop Singh Vs State of Haryana

Vikaram and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Harneet Singh Vs State of Punjab