Dismissed¶8

Vinod Kumar v. Financial Commissioner Revenue ,Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Aug 2025CWP/10947/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition — partition proceedings — Sanad Takseem — ex parte proceedings due to incorrect address (Village Amarpura, Tehsil Fazilka, District Abohar vs House No.273, Guru Nanak Nagar, Mandi Dabwali, Sirsa) — no revenue record of correct address — respondent No.3 awareness / willful wrong address — mother and brother actively participated — proclamation (mustari munadi) in village — revision petition ROR No.593 of 2018 dismissed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab on 22.11.2023 (Annexure P-15) — writ petition dismissed — pending applications closed.

What did the court decide?

Learned counsel for the petitioner did not refer to any revenue record pertaining to the land under partition demonstrating that the petitioner's now-claimed correct address was recorded therein. ¶7

Vinod Kumar Vs Financial Commissioner Revenue ,Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was wrongly proceeded against ex parte in the partition proceedings because an incorrect address (Village Amarpura, Tehsil Fazilka, District Abohar) was mentioned for him, whereas he is a resident of House No.273, Guru Nanak Nagar, Mandi Dabwali, Sirsa.

¶6

Court's answer

Learned counsel for the petitioner did not refer to any revenue record pertaining to the land under partition demonstrating that the petitioner's now-claimed correct address was recorded therein.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

No material or document was placed on record to show that respondent No.3 was aware of the petitioner's correct address and had willfully provided the incorrect address.

¶7

Key takeaways

It was not disputed that the petitioner's mother and brother actively participated in the partition proceedings, and despite a proclamation (mustari munadi) made in the village the petitioner failed to appear in those proceedings.ratio¶7.1
Even in the present writ petition, the petitioner's address is mentioned as Village Amarpura, Tehsil Fazilka, District Abohar, and not Mandi Dabwali, Sirsa.ratio¶7.1

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH — Writ petition dismissed. The petitioner challenged partition proceedings and Sanad Takseem; his revision petition (ROR No.593 of 2018) before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab stood dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure P-15). Sole contention: he was wrongly proceeded against ex parte because an incorrect address (Village Amarpura, Tehsil Fazilka, District Abohar) was mentioned, whereas he is a resident of House No.273, Guru Nanak Nagar, Mandi Dabwali, Sirsa. Held, no merit: no revenue record was referred to showing the claimed correct address was recorded for the land under partition; no material showed respondent No.3 knew the correct address and willfully provided the incorrect one; the petitioner's mother and brother actively participated; despite a proclamation (mustari munadi) in the village he failed to appear; and even the writ petition itself recited the Amarpura address. All pending application(s), if any, closed.

¶1

APURVA 2025.08.11 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶2

¶3

Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid partition proceedings and Sanad Takseem , the petitioner preferred a revision petition (ROR No.593 of 2018) before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure P-15).

¶4

In the aforementioned circumstances, petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court, seeking relief(s) as noticed hereinabove.

¶5

The sole contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was wrongly proceeded against ex parte due to the mention of an incorrect address of Village Amarpura, Tehsil Fazilka, District Abohar, whereas, he is a resident of House No.273, Guru Nanak Nagar, Mandi Dabwali, Sirsa.

¶6

I have considered the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, I do not find any merit in the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not referred to any revenue record pertaining to the land under partition to demonstrate that the petitioner’s correct address, as now claimed, was recorded therein. Further, learned counsel has not placed on record any material/document to show that respondent No.3 was aware of the petitioner's correct address and had willfully provided the incorrect address of petitioner.

¶7

APURVA 2025.08.11 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶8

7.1 It is not disputed before this Court that the petitioner’s mother and brother actively participated in the partition proceedings. Despite a proclamation ( mustari munadi ) being made in the village, the petitioner failed to appear in the partition proceedings. Moreover, even in the present writ petition, the address of petitioner is mentioned as Village Amarpura, Tehsil Fazilka, District Abohar, and not Mandi Dabwali, Sirsa.

¶9

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶10

All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.

¶11

APURVA 2025.08.11 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

Vinod Kumar v. Financial Commissioner Revenue ,Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar v. Financial Commissioner Revenue ,Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Joginder Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jai Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gurdis Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Didar Singh Vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab

Harnam Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harbans Kaur Vs Financial Commissioner (Appeal) Punjab and Others