Writ petition seeking to set aside orders sanctioning an amended partition plan and rejecting contention that the passage provided was not straight and was on the wrong side of the property.
All challenged orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are dismissed. No order as to costs.
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.
CWP No.8637 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.8637 of 2010
Date of Decision: 03.01.2012
Chiranji Lal and others
… Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
…Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 4. None for respondents No.5 to 11.
Paramjeet Singh, J.(Oral)
The instant writ petition has been filed for setting aside order 15.01.1998 (Annexure P-1) passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Assandh, Karnal, whereby amended Naksha ‘Bey’ has been sanctioned in the partition proceedings. The appeal, revision and second revision filed by the petitioners have also been dismissed vide order dated 27.05.1998 (Annexure P-2) passed by Collector, Assandh, Karnal, order dated 30.01.2002 (Annexure P-3) passed by Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak and order dated 23.02.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed an application for partition after various rounds. Ultimately on 15.01.1998 amended Naksha Bey was prepared in pursuant to the remand order 23.07.1997 passed by the Collector and the same was accepted vide order
CWP No.8637 of 2010 -2-
dated 15.01.1998 (Annexure P-1). The petitioners preferred an appeal against order dated 15.01.1998 (Annexure P-1) claiming therein that the passage given to the fields of Om Parkash-respondent in the amended Naksha ‘Bey’ along side Killa No.163//21-22 has been given on the northern side, whereas the passage from the southern side of this Killa is a straight.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners have been using the passage “BC” shown in the site plan (Annexure R-11/A from the southern side of the Killa No.163//21-22. But the Assistant Collector Ist Grade in pursuant to the remand order has wrongly sanctioned the passage from the northern side shown in the site plan (Annexure R-11/A) as ‘AA’. The order of learned Asstt. Collector Ist Grade and the orders of other authorities are against the law, illegal, and void and are liable to be set aside.
The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not sustainable. Admittedly, the case was remanded by the Collector vide order dated 23.07.1997, thereafter amended Naksha ‘Bey’ was called and the amended Naksha ‘Bey’ was in accordance with the remand order passed by the Collector. Admittedly, the petitioners and respondents are co-sharers in the land and the application for partition was moved by the petitioners themselves. The partition has become final as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, which has not been denied by the counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the Sanad Taksim (an instrument of partition) has already been
CWP No.8637 of 2010 -3-
prepared. A glance at the site plan (Annexure R-11/A) shows that passage shown in the site plan with red line has been provided at the time of consolidation to connect the passage which has been provided from the northern side of Killa No.163//21-22 (shown in site plan Annexure R- 11/A as ‘AA’) and distance of the passage on southern side as well as on the northern side is same. The petitioners have been given 2 kanals land in Khasra No.256//19. It will not cause any prejudice or loss to the petitioners in any manner. Apart from the fact that the distance from both the side i.e. northern side as well as southern side is same and passage on both side is straight. All the revenue authorities have concurrently concluded against the petitioners. The passage on the northern side has been validly provided. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the contention of the petitioners is rejected.
In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is
dismissed being devoid of merits.
No order as to costs.
( PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE
vcgarg
03.01.2012
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a partition settlement finalized in the form of an instrument (Sanad Taksim) can be set aside by a writ petition on the ground of the location of a passage being legally incorrect?
Chiranji Lal and others
The State of Haryana
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
