Partly allowed

Pirthi Raj and Ors. v. Commissioner Ferozepur Division Ferozepur and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Feb 2015LPA/289/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal to be filed despite delay. It declined to interfere with the Single Judge's order but directed the Assistant Collector to examine the appellants' objections concerning their tenancy rights and the partition mode in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed subject to delay condonation; direction issued to Assistant Collector to examine appellants' objections regarding tenancy rights and partition mode.

Pirthi Raj and Ors. Vs Commissioner Ferozepur Division… — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.289 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 23, 2015

¶3

Pirthi Raj and others .....Appellants versus Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and others .....Respondents

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH.

¶5

Present:Mr.Surinder Pal Singh Tinna, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶6

-.-

¶7

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶9

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶10

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶11

The order dated 09.12.2014 whereby learned Single Judge has rejected the appellants' challenge to the mode of partition sanctioned by the Assistant Collector, 1^st Grade, Abohar, is under challenge in this letters patent appeal.

¶12

The case of the appellants is that they are tenants in possession of the entire joint land-holding measuring 239 kanals 18 marlas, since the year 1950. However, in due course of time, the appellants are said to have purchased a substantial part of the land-holding through six sale deeds executed on different dates in the years 1993, 1995 and 2005. One of the co-sharer (Parkash Chand) did not sell his share and has

¶13

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.03.10 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶14

[2]

¶15

LPA No.289 of 2015 (O&M)

¶16

sought partition of the joint holding. It was in those proceedings that the Assistant Collector, 1^st Grade, Abohar vide order dated 22.08.2012 sanctioned the mode of partition.

¶17

The appellants have two-folds grievance against the above-stated order. Firstly, they allege that their specific objections filed alongwith the written statement have been completely over-looked by the Assistant Collector, 1^st Grade, and secondly, they claim that the mode of partition ought to have a specific clause for the protection of their tenancy rights.

¶18

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the paper-book.

¶19

The record reveals that the appellants, firstly, approached the Collector and then Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur against the order dated 22.08.2012 of the Assistant Collector, 1^st Grade, but both the authorities declined to interfere primarily on the ground of non-maintainability of the appeal and revision, respectively. The appellants then approached this Court but the learned Single Judge has also dismissed their writ petition.

¶20

In our considered view, if the appellants have already filed written statement alongwith objections against the mode of partition, the Authority concerned would deal with those objections and decide the same in accordance with law. As of now, we do not want to comment upon the allegations made by the appellant-tenants least it causes any prejudice to either party. We thus, decline to interfere with the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge but dispose of this appeal with a direction to the Assistant Collector, 1^st Grade, Abohar to look into the objections, if any,

¶21

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.03.10 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

[3]

¶23

LPA No.289 of 2015 (O&M)

¶24

submitted by the appellants and deal with the same in accordance with law.

Ordered accordingly.

Dasti.

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE

February 23, 2015 [RAJ MOHAN SINGH] Mohinder JUDGE

¶29

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.03.10 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

LPA No.289 of 2015 (O&M)

¶31

[4]

¶32

113 CM No.574 of 2015 in LPA No.289 of 2015

¶33

¶34

Pirthi Raj and others versus Commissioner, Ferozepur Division & ors.

¶35

Present : Mr.Surinder Pal Singh Tinna, Advocate, for the applicant-appellants. * * *

¶36

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and 18 days' delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

¶37

CM stands disposed of.

¶38

(SURYA KANT)

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

February 23, 2015 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)

¶41

Mohinder JUDGE

¶42

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.03.10 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Pirthi Raj and Ors. v. Commissioner Ferozepur Division Ferozepur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pirthi Raj and Ors. v. Commissioner Ferozepur Division Ferozepur 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

Kashmir Singh Vs Director Rural Development & Panchayats Department Pb & Ors.

Mukand Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Jai Bhagwan and Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Jagminder Singh Vs State of Haryana&Ors.

Jatinder Singh & Ors. Vs Director Land Records Pb Jalandhar & Ors.

Nanak Singh @ Nanak Chand and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.