Dismissed

Gurdial Singh & Anr. v. Financial Commissioner Revenue Pb & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jul 2013CWP/14288/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the Financial Commissioner's order upholding the discontinuation of partition proceedings. The High Court upheld the Commissioner's judgment, dismissing the petition for lack of merit as the dispute was decided years prior and procedural errors were noted.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no merit found in the challenge to the Financial Commissioner's order.

Gurdial Singh & Anr. Vs Financial… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Kumar Vinod 2013.07.18 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No.14288 of 2013

[ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶6

CWP No.14288 of 2013 Date of decision:15.07.2013

¶7

Gurdial Singh and another

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Financial Commissioner (revenue), Punjab, and others ...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

¶12

Present: Mr. B.S.Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for respondent no.5-caveator. *****

¶14

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

¶15

The facts in brief are that respondent nos.5 and 6 filed an application for partition of land measuring 150 Kanals 12 Marlas, situated in village Behman Diwana, Tehsil and District Bathinda, on 11.03.2005 before the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade. The petitioners objected to the partition proceedings on 22.04.2005 on account of partial partition but their objection was rejected on 27.06.2002 and the mode of partition was finalized on 22.08.2007 calling for Naksha-Be which was approved on 13.11.2009 and Naksha Jeem was summoned. However, the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, vide his order dated 29.12.2009, held that the partition proceedings cannot be continued because it is a case of partial partition and that the another case titled as “Joginder Singh Vs. Harbans Singh” was

¶16

Kumar Vinod 2013.07.18 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.14288 of 2013 [ 2 ]

¶17

¶18

pending and adjourned the matter sine die . Two appeals were filed against the order of the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade dated 29.12.2009; one by the petitioners and other by the private respondents. The petitioners have alleged that the entire proceedings should be restarted by including the entire land of the Khewat, whereas the private respondents were keen on continuation of the earlier proceedings which were adjourned sine die. The Financial Commissioner, while dismissing the plea of the petitioners with regard to the partial partition, has observed that the said issue has already been decided in the year 2002 and cannot be taken up again and a question of partial partition should be raised at the initial stage and not at the stage of Naksha Jeem. It was also observed that the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade has not indicated as to how the decision pending in the case of “Joginder Singh Vs. Harbans Singh” would have any bearing on the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently, the order of the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade was set aside.

¶19

Aggrieved against the order of the Financial Commissioner, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, after perusal of the record and inquiry, came to the conclusion that the partial partition application filed by respondent nos.5 and 6 was not complete because the entire land is not included in the application. Naksha-Be is not in accordance with the mode of partition because as per the mode of partition, possession was not to be disturbed which has been disturbed in the Naksha-Be.

¶21

Kumar Vinod 2013.07.18 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh [ 3 ]

¶22

CWP No.14288 of 2013

¶23

¶24

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent no.5-caveator has submitted that the issue of partial partition has already been decided by rejecting the contention of the petitioners on 27.06.2002 and the question of preparation of Naksha Be, contrary to the mode of partition, cannot be taken up when Naksha Jeem has been prepared.

¶25

After hearing both counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I do not find any error in the order of the Financial Commissioner because the issue of partial partition was taken up by the petitioners about 11 years back before the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade who had rejected the said prayer on 27.06.2002 and insofar as the preparation of Naksha-Be is concerned, the mode of partition was finalized on 22.08.2007 and the Naksha-Be was approved on 13.11.2009. Thereafter, Naksha Jeem was called for. In this regard, the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade on 29.12.2009 was totally uncalled for and has rightly been set aside by the Financial Commissioner.

¶26

Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶27

July 15, 2013 vinod*

¶28

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

Gurdial Singh & Anr. v. Financial Commissioner Revenue Pb & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdial Singh & Anr. v. Financial Commissioner Revenue Pb & 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

Jai Pal Vs Hardeep Kumar & Ors.

Raj Kumar Vs Financial Commissioner & Ors.

Gurminder Singh Lalli Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ruhla and Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar Yadav and Anr.

Harbans Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Anju Vs U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.