Dismissed

Phool Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Jul 2013CWP/10556/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders in partition proceedings alleging the Assistant Collector approved the partition map without visiting the spot. The High Court found no merit as spot visit findings by lower courts relied upon established facts that the respondent had adequate road access.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner's contentions lacked merit in view of concurrent findings of fact by lower courts.

Phool Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Kumar Vinod 2013.07.16 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶2

CWP No.10556 of 2013 (O&M)

¶3

[ 1 ]

¶4

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶6

CWP No.10556 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:11.07.2013

¶7

Phool Singh ...Petitioner

¶8

Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

¶10

Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. *****

¶11

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

¶12

The petitioner has challenged various orders of the revenue authorities passed in the partition proceedings.

¶13

In brief, respondent nos.5 to 7 filed an application for partition of land measuring 138 Kanals, situated in village Sanwat, District Karnal. The Assistant Collector 2^nd Grade, Nigdhu, sanctioned Naksha-Be on 13.03.1999 but appeal against that order was accepted by the Collector, Karnal, on 29.11.1999 and remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector 2^nd Grade with a direction to sanction Naksha-Be again after hearing both the parties. The revision petition filed against the order of the Collector by the respondents was dismissed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, with the direction that the partition proceedings may be completed after visiting the spot and as per the approved mode of partition. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector 2^nd Grade, Nigdhu, approved Naksha-Be on 22.08.2006 against the mode of partition. It is alleged that the Assistant Collector 2^nd Grade, Nigdhu, approved Naksha-Be on 22.08.2006 against the mode of partition without visiting the spot. The petitioner filed appeal

¶14

Kumar Vinod 2013.07.16 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

CWP No.10556 of 2013 (O&M) [ 2 ]

¶16

¶17

against the said order dated 22.08.2006 but it was dismissed by the Collector, Karnal on 15.03.2007, revision by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, was dismissed on 13.10.2011, and the revision filed before the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed on 09.07.2012.

¶18

It is mainly argued by counsel for the petitioner that there was no need to provide a passage to respondent no.7 as his land was already accessible by an existing rasta. In support of his submission, he has referred to two photographs placed on record to contend that the land of respondent no.7 is on the metalled road and has the passage.

¶19

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. From the metalled road, the land of respondent no.7 can be accessed in the front of the road and not inside his fields. Moreover, the learned Court below has found that the Assistant Collector 2^nd Grade had himself visited the site and found that there was no pucca road abutting the kurra of respondent no.7 as there was land of some other land owners of village Bhukhapuri between the pucca road and kurra of respondent no.7. This aspect has also been thoroughly discussed by the Commissioner when the first revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Court below, I do not find any merit in the present case and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶21

July 11, 2013 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge

Phool Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phool Singh v. State of Haryana 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

Munshi Ram, Si Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Lal Chand Si Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sube Singh Si Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Bachan Lal Vs Siban C

Tilak Raj Vs Raj Kumar and Another

Sunita Vs State of Haryana and Ors.