Dismissed

Ram Kishan v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jul 2013CWP/12424/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of objections against a partition map (Naksha Be) in land partition proceedings. The writ court observed the petitioner failed to appeal earlier partition orders and noted lack of evidence proving mutual partition. The petition was dismissed for being devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as the petitioner failed to challenge earlier partition orders and provided no evidence of mutual partition.

Ram Kishan Vs State of Haryana… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Kumar Vinod 2013.07.08 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶2

CWP No.12424 of 2013

¶3

[ 1 ]

¶4

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶6

CWP No.12424 of 2013 Date of decision:05.07.2013

¶7

Ram Kishan ...Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Haryana and others

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

¶12

Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner. *****

¶13

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

¶14

The petitioner, after a full round of litigation before the revenue courts, had preferred this petition to assail validity of the order by which objections filed by him against the Naksha Be were dismissed.

¶15

In brief, respondent No.5 initiated proceedings for partition of joint holdings of 92 Kanals 8 Marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Sambhali, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal. The preliminary objections raised by the petitioner against partition were dismissed, Naksha Alif was accepted and mode of partition was prepared. The objections against the Naksha Be were also rejected and the Naksha Be was confirmed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade vide order dated 15.09.2010. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the Collector on 10.03.2011. His revision was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, on 06.07.2012 and further revision before the Financial Commissioner was dismissed on 28.01.2013.

¶16

The only argument raised by counsel for the petitioner before

¶17

[ 2 ]

¶18

Kumar Vinod 2013.07.08 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CWP No.12424 of 2013

¶20

¶21

this Court as well as before the Courts below is that the land in question had already been partitioned with mutual consent of the parties long back during the time of their elders and two separate chunks were prepared as per value and fertility of the land. The father of respondent No.5 had chosen a chunk of land which was more fertile and the land of inferior quality, with 3 Kanals more, came to the share of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the said land was pledged with the Land Mortgage Bank in the year 1975 for taking loan and has been re-claimed with great toil.

¶22

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶23

It has been the consistent view of all the revenue Courts that since the petitioner did not file any appeal against Naksha Alif as well as the mode of partition, therefore, he cannot raise the question of title without proving, by any cogent evidence, the mutual partition between the predecessors-in-interest of the parties to the lis to claim 3 Kanals more land and the land in question on the pretext of protection of possession, as provided in the mode of partition.

¶24

After giving my thoughtful consideration and keeping in view the facts and circumstances much-less the fact that there is no evidence on record about mutual partition, which is also required to be reflected in the revenue record, I do not find any error in the orders passed by the Courts below and hence, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed being denuded of any merit.

¶25

July 05, 2013 vinod*

¶26

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

Ram Kishan v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kishan 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

Ranbir Singh Vs Hardeep Kumar and Ors.

Sukhwinder Kaur Vs Paramjit Singh

Joginder Singh and Ors. Vs Darshan Singh and Ors.

Sant Ram and Ors. Vs Varun Roojam, D.C. Hoshiarpur

Prem Singh Vs State of Punjab & Os.

Faquir Singh and Another Vs Financial Commissio Er (Revenue) Punjab & Others