Disposed

Baljinder Singh Adn Another v. Santokh Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Apr 2024RA-CW/113/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review application concerning partition proceedings. The court held that after amendment to Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, a revision petition is maintainable before the Financial Commissioner even after issuance of Sanad Taksim, but set aside the Financial Commissioner's earlier order so it would not prejudice a fresh revision petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Baljinder Singh Adn Another Vs Santokh Singh and Others — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

��

¶2

124

¶3

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RA-CW No.113 of 2024 in CWP No.2898 of 2024 Date of Decision: 16.04.2024

¶5

Baljinder Singh and another

¶6

..... Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Santokh Singh and others

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

¶11

¶12

Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the applicants-petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate; Mr. Rohit Sapehiya, Advocate and Ms. Deepika Chauhan, Advocate for the respondents.

¶14

¶15

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Instant review application has been filed for

¶17

reviewing/recalling the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by this Court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted before this Court that this Court has already disposed of the main writ petition vide order dated 22.02.2024 and review of which is being sought by the applicants-petitioners. He submits that in view of the provisions of Section 16(3)(ii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, the revision petition would not lie before the learned Financial Commissioner as he has already passed the impugned order dated 11.12.2023.

¶19

Notice of motion.

¶20

RITTU 2024.04.19 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

RA-CW No.113 of 2024 in -2CWP No.2898 of 2024

¶22

2024:PHHC:050909

¶23

Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate appears and accepts the notice on behalf of the respondents. He has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners and has submitted that after amendment of Section 16 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, the revision petition is very much maintainable before the learned Financial Commissioner after issuance of the Sanad Taksim.

¶24

However, learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners has submitted that the learned Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 11.12.2023 has already upheld the Naksha Bey and thus has upheld the partition proceedings which would cause material prejudice to the petitioner in case the applicants file the revision petition after issuance of Sanad Taksim.

¶25

Heard.

¶26

On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that Sanad Taksim was issued in the present case after passing of the order by the Financial Commissioner dated 11.12.2023. As per the amendment of provisions of Section 16 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, the revision petition is maintainable before the learned Financial Commissioner. However the Court is in agreement with the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants that the observations made by the learned Financial Commissioner in the order dated 11.12.2023 would prejudice their interest on filing of the revision petition challenging the Sanad Taksim which has been issued subsequently.

¶27

RITTU 2024.04.19 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

RA-CW No.113 of 2024 in -32024:PHHC:050909 CWP No.2898 of 2024

¶29

Thus the order dated 11.12.2023 is set aside. The petitioners would be at liberty to file the revision petition as already permitted by this Court vide order dated 22.02.2024. In case the petitioners file the revision petition within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the learned Financial Commissioner would summon both the sides and on hearing both the parties, would decide the revision petition afresh without being influenced by any observation made by the Financial Commissioner earlier in the order dated 11.12.2023, expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of its filing.

¶30

Till the decision of the revision petition, the parties are directed to maintain status quo.

¶31

The review application stands disposed of in the above mentioned terms.

¶32

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE 16.04.2024 rittu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶33

RITTU 2024.04.19 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Baljinder Singh Adn Another v. Santokh Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Baljinder Singh Adn Another v. Santokh Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramjit Vs State of Punjab and Others

Brij Pal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Trilok Chand Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gram Panchayat Hathiara Vs Kulvir Verma and Ors.

Pankaj Vs State of Haryana

Narinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Others