Dismissed

Gurdial Singh etc. v. Financial Commissioner Revenue etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jan 2012CWP/18808/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging partition orders under the Punjab Land Revenue Act was dismissed. The Court held that passages were necessary for ownership connectivity and rejected claims of land wastage or unlisted religious structures despite the large number of parties.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no merit found in the petitioner's contentions regarding the partition order.

Gurdial Singh etc. Vs Financial Commissioner Revenue etc. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 18808 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No. 18808 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 23, 2012

¶5

Gurdial Singh and others.

¶6

.... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. N.S. Virk, Additional A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1.

¶13

Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and 11 to 13.

¶14

Paramjeet Singh, J.

¶15

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nangal, order dated 25.08.2008 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Collector, Nangal, order dated 26.03.2009 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, and order dated 18.08.2009 (Annexure P/10) passed by respondent No.1 – Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab, in the partition proceedings initiated under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.

¶16

CWP No. 18808 of 2009 2

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that Dama, father of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, and others filed an application for partition of 170 kanals 4 marlas of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Sehjowal, Tehsil Nangal, District Ropar, as per the jamabandi for the year 1988-89. After completing all the formalities, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, vide order dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure P/4), finalized the partition. The petitioners preferred appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade before the Collector, which has been dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 25.08.2008 (Annexure P/5). Revision petition filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 26.03.2009 (Annexure P/6). Thereafter, the petitioners filed second revision petition that too had been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 18.08.2009 (Annexure P/10). Hence, this writ petition.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶19

record.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the final partition has not been carried out according to the mode of partition, as such, Naksha Bey is required to be set aside. The grievance of the petitioners is that 1 kanal 10 marlas of land has been wasted in passages without any necessity. It is a sheer wastage of land.

¶21

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Before I deal with this contention, it would be appropriate to peruse the site plans (Annexure P/2 and P/3). Firstly Naksha Bey (Annexure P/3) was prepared on 16.08.2007, on the objections of the parties, amended Naksha Bey dated 05.10.2007 (Annexure P/2) has been

¶22

CWP No. 18808 of 2009

¶23

¶24

called in pursuance of order dated 1.10.2007 of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Perusal of amended Naksha Bey clearly indicates that the land has been partitioned in such a manner that minimum land issued in the passages. All the tuks have been carved out, in such a manner that their front touch, the passage either already existing or carved out during partition to connect the main passage provided during the consolidation. Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out how without providing passage, the land can be partitioned. It would be appropriate to mention here that the petitioners have challenged order dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure P/4), wherein it is specifically mentioned that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade visited the spot and found the partition is correct except Khara No.556. Detailed reasons have been given in the order for using 1 kanal 10 marlas land in passage. The appeal, revision and second revision preferred by the petitioners have been dismissed. The partition has been finalised. I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the passage was not required to be carved out.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised another argument that the petitioners have installed Nishan Sahib near the Smadh of his ancestors, but it is not mentioned in objections. When this Court specifically asked to the learned counsel for the petitioners to tell the khasra number. Learned counsel could not reply to that in which khasra number Nishan Sahib and Smadh is in existence. It would be appropriate to mention here that the land is very small and the parties are many. The khurars of the parties carved out, visible in site plan (Annexure P/2), are of

¶26

CWP No. 18808 of 2009 4

¶27

a small size. The large number of persons are having shares in the land. The petitioners apparently have filed the present writ petition just to delay the proceedings. Revenue record does not show when Nishan Sahib and Smadh were established. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also rejected.

¶28

In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere in the orders of the revenue authorities which have concurrently found that the `Naksha Bey' has been approved as per the mode of partition and

¶29

Sanad Takseem has also been prepared.

¶30

No merit.

¶31

Dismissed.

¶32

January 23, 2012 ( Paramjeet Singh ) vkd Judge

Gurdial Singh etc. v. Financial Commissioner Revenue etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdial Singh etc. v. Financial Commissioner Revenue etc.

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

Balbir Singh Vs the Financial Commissioner Haryana and Others

Dewan Bajinder Kumar Vs Financial Comm. etc.

Girdhari and Others Vs Finl. Commr. Haryana and Others

Bawa Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Pardeep Kumar Vs State

Hatin Barman Vs State of Haryana and Ors.