Allowed

Inder Sain and Ors. v. the Financial Comm. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jan 2012CWP/16280/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that revenue authorities committed patent illegality by disposing of partition matters without considering objections to the initial survey map. The orders were set aside, and the matter remanded to hear objections on record.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 20.04.2010, 01.03.2006, 19.01.2005, 26.07.2004, and 16.01.2004 set aside; matter remanded to Assistant Collector to reconsider objections and pass a speaking order.

Inder Sain and Ors. Vs the Financial Comm. and Ors. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.16280 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No.16280 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 05, 2012

¶4

Inder Sain and others

¶5

…..Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others

¶8

….Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr. Mukhtiar Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Bhagwant Gupta, Sr. DAG, Punjab

¶12

Mr. IPS Bains, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 9.

¶13

Paramjeet Singh, J

¶14

The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of order dated 20.04.2010 (Annexure P-8) passed by Financial Commissioner, order dated 01.03.2006 (Annexure P-6) passed by Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, order dated 19.01.2005 (Annexure P-5) passed by Collector, SubDivision, Ludhaina (East) and order dated 26.07.2004 (Annexure P-4) passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade in the partition proceedings under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that the private respondents No.5, 6 and one Mohan Singh- (predecessor in interest of respondents No.6 to 9) filed six applications for partition of land bearing Khewat No.52, 53, 54, 55,

¶16

CWP No.16280 of 2010

¶17

56 and 59 situated within the revenue limits of Village Katani Khurd, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. On 26.07.2004 Naksha Irri was placed on record before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade who approved the Naksha Irri vide order dated 26.07.2004 (Annexure P-4). Petitioners preferred six appeals against the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade before the Collector which were dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 19.01.2005 (Annexure P-5) The revisions and second revisions filed by the petitioners against the order of Collector have also been dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner vide orders dated 01.03.2006 (Annexure P-6) and 20.04.2010 (Annexure P-8) respectively. Hence, this writ petition.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the land in possession of the petitioners has not been given to them. Their possession has been disturbed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that as per Clause 2 of the Mode of Partition, three tuks were required to be made, however four tuks have been carved out which are against the terms of the mode of partition. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 30.04.2004 (Annexure P-3) it is clear that the objections of the petitioners to the Naksha Arra have not been considered. Naksha Irri was passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade without dealing with the objections of the petitioners. Order dated 30.04.2004 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Assistant Collector reads as under:

¶20

“File put up, the case was called. Counsel with parties were present. Naksha (Arra) was conducted, the objections taken

¶21

CWP No.16280 of 2010

¶22

were baseless. Naksha is being approved. Patwari of the area is being directed to prepare Naksha (Irri). File be put up on 28.05.2004.”

¶23

The Assistant Collector Ist Grade has rejected the objections of the petitioner without recording any reasoning and directed the revenue officials to prepare Naksha Irri . The appeal preferred by the petitioners has also been dismissed on flimsy ground and the Collector has not considered the objections raised to Naksha Arra . There is a clear cut violation of the terms of the mode of partition specifically of clause 2 which states that only three tuks will be carved out whereas four tuks have been carved out.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have failed to point out that Naksha Arra has been prepared in accordance with mode of partition as mentioned in order dated 16.01.2004 (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the private respondents has contended that petitioners have not made any specific prayer in the writ petition for quashing of order dated 16.01.2004 (Annexure P-1), whereas the basic contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the partition has been carried out against the terms of mode of partition which has not been considered by the revenues authorities.

¶25

Be that as it may this Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can exercise its power where it finds per se illegality and pass the appropriate orders. The petitioners raised specific objections to Naksha Arra , which have been declined by the Assitant Collector Ist Grade by a cryptic order without assigning any reason resulting into miscarriage of justice. There is thus patent illegality in the orders passed by the revenue authorities, which cannot be sustained in law.

¶26

CWP No.16280 of 2010

¶27

In view of above, the impugned orders (Annexures P-8, P-6, P-5 and P-4) passed by the revenue authorities and also order dated 16.01.2004 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ludhiana are set aside and the case is remanded to Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ludhiana (East) to reconsider the objections to Naksha Arra (Annexure P-2) filed by Inder Pal Singh etc and pass a speaking order.

¶28

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in above terms. However no order as to costs.

¶29

(PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE

¶30

05.01.2012 vcgarg

Inder Sain and Ors. v. the Financial Comm. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inder Sain and Ors. v. the Financial Comm. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satpal and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sunder Pal Singh Sandhu and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Manmohan Singh Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors.

Sudarshan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.(Allowed on 5.1.2012)

Rakesh Bhargava & Anr. Vs Satpal Jindal

Sawinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.