Disposed

Brij Pal v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Apr 2024CWP/2297/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenged a Financial Commissioner's order upholding partition proceedings before issuance of Sanad Taksim. The High Court set aside that order, remanded the pending challenge to the Sanad Taksim to the Commissioner with directions to decide uninfluenced by the impugned observations within three months.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure P-14) set aside; case remanded to the Commissioner to decide pending Sanad Taksim challenge expeditiously within three months.

Brij Pal Vs State of Haryana and Others — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CWP-2297-2020 (O&M) and another case

¶2

-1-

¶3

Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:049841

¶4

110(2 cases)

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶6

1. CWP-2297-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 15, 2024

Brij Pal

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶11

......Respondents

¶12

CWP-12129-2020 (O&M)

¶13

Hukam Singh (Deceased) through LRs

¶14

…….Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

State of Haryana and others

¶17

……..Respondents

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

¶19

Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.K.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-2297-2020.

¶20

Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-12129-2020.

¶21

Ms.Upasana Dhawan, AAG, Haryana.

¶22

Mr.Gaurav Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2 in both the cases.

¶23

Mr.Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the respondents in CWP-2297-2020.

¶24

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL)

¶25

Both the above-mentioned writ petitions are being decided by

¶26

this common order as prayer in both the cases is common, i.e. for quashing

¶27

of order dated 13.05.2019, passed by learned Financial Commissioner

¶28

MEENU 2024.04.16 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CWP-2297-2020 (O&M) and another case -2-

¶30

Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:049841

¶31

whereby remand order passed by the Commissioner, directing the Revenue Authorities to go for spot inspection and prepare `naksha be’ afresh has been set aside in a most arbitrary, illegal and unlawful manner.

¶32

For the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP-2297-2020.

¶33

It has been submitted by learned senior counsel that Sanad Taksim’ in this case was issued on 29.11.2019 whereas the order impugned was passed prior to the issuance of Sanad Taksim’. Learned senior counsel has fairly submitted that this Sanad Taksim’ was issued without hearing the petitioners and hence they were left with no alternative than to challenge the same before the learned Commissioner as per law. He has submitted that petition challenging Sanad Taksim’ is pending consideration before the learned Commissioner. He submits that however the observations made by learned Financial Commissioner in the impugned order dated 13.05.2019 would prejudice the petitioners as Financial Commissioner has already upheld the partition proceedings before issuance of `Sanad Taksim’.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶35

In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of. Order dated 13.05.2019, Annexure P-14, is set aside. Case is remanded to the Commissioner where challenge to the `Sanad Taksim’ is pending with direction to it to hear the grievances of both the sides and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within three months from the next date fixed before it. It is

¶36

MEENU 2024.04.16 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

CWP-2297-2020 (O&M) and another case

¶38

-3-

¶39

Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:049841

¶40

further being clarified that learned Commissioner would decide the matter without being influenced by any observation made by learned Financial

¶41

Commissioner in the order dated 13.05.2019.

¶42

Both the petitions stand disposed of in above terms.

¶43

April 15, 2024 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1. Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable ? Yes/No

¶44

MEENU 2024.04.16 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Brij Pal v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Pal v. State of Haryana and Others

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

Mohan Lal Vs Commissioner Division Ambala and Others

Shishu Pal and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Arvind Kumar Saini and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ramjit Vs State of Punjab and Others

Trilok Chand Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jagdev Singh and Anr. Vs Superintending Canal Officer and Others