Allowed

Jagroop Singh v. Financial Commissioner Appeals-Ii, and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Oct 2014CWP/9481/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's subsisting civil decree declaring him a joint owner entitles him to participate in the partition proceedings. The impugned orders were quashed, and the AC Ist Grade in Dasuya was directed to implead the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; AC Ist Grade directed to implead the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law.

Jagroop Singh Vs Financial Commissioner Appeals-Ii, and… — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No.9481 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.9481 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.10.2014

Jagroop Singh

....Petitioner

versus

Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶11

Present: - Mr. K.S. Cheema, Advocate, for the petitioner. Dr. Deepa Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 7.

¶12

PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶13

CM No.12522 of 2014

¶14

Allowed as prayed for.

¶15

CM No.12523 of 2014

¶16

Allowed. Reply of respondent No.7, GPA of respondents No.2 to 6 and Annexures R2/3 to R2/9 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

¶17

CWP No.9481 of 2010 (O&M)

¶18

Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.01.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.1 – Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, order dated 28.02.2005 (Annexure P-2) passed by Collector (SDM), Dasuya and order dated 17.06.2004 (Annexure P-1) passed by AC Ist Grade, Dasuya.

¶19

RAVINDER SINGH 2014.10.17 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶20

-2-

¶21

CWP No.9481 of 2010

¶22

Brief facts of the case are that Kanwarjeet Kaur etc. filed applications before Tehsildar, Dasuya, for partition of land measuring 445 kanals 15 marlas situated in village Rarha as per jamabandi for the year 1998-99. During the proceedings of said proceedings, petitioner moved an application for impleading him as party on the ground that he has purchased the land from Darshan Singh son of Ganga Singh vide sale deed dated 11.05.1995 and the possession was delivered to him. The application was dismissed by AC Ist Grade vide order dated 17.06.2004. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before Collector, Dasuya was also dismissed vide order dated 28.02.2005. The Commissioner allowed the revision petition of the petitioner vide order dated 29.08.2006, set aside the orders of AC Ist Grade and Collector and matter was remanded to AC Ist Grade for fresh decision. However, respondents No.2 to 7 preferred revision petition against the order of Commissioner, which has been allowed by Financial Commissioner vide impugned order dated 27.01.2010 and order of the Commissioner has been set aside. Hence, this writ petition.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶24

Admittedly, petitioner has purchased the land from Darshan Singh vide sale deed dated 11.05.1995 and thereafter the civil suit was filed. In the civil suit decree dated 31.08.2010 (Annexure P-6) has been passed in favour of the petitioner whereby he has been declared joint owner to the extent of 1040/7667 share. Till date said decree has not

¶25

RAVINDER SINGH 2014.10.17 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶26

-3-

¶27

CWP No.9481 of 2010

¶28

been set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents has failed to show to this Court that said decree has been set aside. Since the decree is subsisting, in view of Section 111(b) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, petitioner's rights are subsisting and he has every right to participate in the partition proceedings.

¶29

In view of this, present writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. AC Ist Grade is directed to implead petitioner as party and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that if in appeal or otherwise the decree is set aside, respondents will be at liberty to move appropriate Court for appropriate relief. If the decree has been stayed, it will be open to the respondents to seek review of this order.

¶30

October 16, 2014 R.S.

¶31

(Paramjeet Singh) Judge

¶32

RAVINDER SINGH 2014.10.17 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Jagroop Singh v. Financial Commissioner Appeals-Ii, and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagroop Singh v. Financial Commissioner Appeals-Ii, and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukh Pal Sarpanch Vs State of Haryana and Another

Dharambir Vs Deputy Coleector & Ors.

Resham Kaur etc. Vs Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and Others

Gurbachan Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Satbir Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ajit Singh Vs Financial Commissioner and Others