Disposed¶26

Ramotar and Ors. v. Financial Commissioner Revenue Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jul 2026CWP/10042/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition proceedings; sanad taksim; necessary or proper party; co-sharer status on date of partition application; purchase by sale deed dated 02.11.2012 after partition application filed on 16.07.2009; revision before Financial Commissioner, Haryana; AC 1st Grade, Kanina; remand for fresh decision; legal heirs of respondent No.14-Santra; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; CWP-10042-2018 (O&M); decided 27.07.2026; judge Pankaj Jain; reportable: No.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 11.05.2016 of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana set aside; the Financial Commissioner directed to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law within 03 months; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of along with the main case. ¶26

Ramotar and Ors. Vs Financial Commissioner Revenue Haryana and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana setting aside the partition proceedings can be sustained, given that respondent No.2 acquired the land only after the partition application was filed and therefore was not a co-sharer (nor a necessary or proper party) on that date.

¶24

Court's answer

On the date the partition application was filed (16.07.2009), respondent No.2 was not a co-sharer in the joint land, having purchased the land only vide sale deed dated 02.11.2012, and therefore could not claim to be a necessary or proper party on that date.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The legal heirs of respondent No.14-Santra (respondent No.15 herein) have, till date, not raised any challenge against the sanad taksim.

¶24

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the Financial Commissioner cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside.ratio¶25
The Financial Commissioner shall decide the revision afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of 03 months from the date of this judgment.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Pankaj Jain, J., Oral), CWP-10042-2018 (O&M), Ramotar and others v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and others (decided 27.07.2026): By order dated 11.05.2016 (Annexure P-9), the Financial Commissioner, Haryana had, on revision by respondent No.2, set aside the partition proceedings conducted by the AC 1st Grade, Kanina on the ground that they were not conducted as per law and were done behind the back of the revisionist-petitioner and the legal heirs of respondent No.14, remanding the case for fresh decision. The High Court noted that the partition application was filed on 16.07.2009 whereas the revisionist purchased the land only vide sale deed dated 02.11.2012, so that on the date of the application respondent No.2 was not a co-sharer and could not claim to be a necessary or proper party; it further noted that the legal heirs of respondent No.14-Santra (respondent No.15 herein) had till date raised no challenge to the sanad taksim. Finding the impugned order unsustainable, the Court set it aside and directed the Financial Commissioner to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law within 03 months; the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. Reportable: No.

¶1

CWP-10042-2018 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

231

¶5

CWP-10042-2018 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.07.2026

¶6

Ramotar and others

¶7

...... Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and others

¶10

...... Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶12

Present: Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

¶14

Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶15

¶16

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

¶17

Challenge is to the order dated 11.05.2016 (Annexure P-9) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana whereby the Financial Commissioner on revision preferred by respondent No.2 has set aside the partition proceedings initiated by the present petitioner observing as

¶18

under:-

¶19

“xx xx xx Keeping in view the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner the partition proceedings have not been conducted by the AC 1 Grade, Kanina as per law. The respondents No. 1 and 2 while filing the partition application neither impleaded the legal heirs of respondent No. 14 as party nor the petitioner impleaded the necessary party. The partition proceedings have been done behind the back of the petitioner as well as legal heirs of respondent No. 14. Therefore, I allow the present revision and set aside all the impugned orders passed by the AC 1^st Grade, Kanina. The case is remanded to the AC 1^st Grade, Kanina with the

¶20

DINESH KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-10042-2018 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

directions to decide the case afresh after hearing the objections of the petitioner as she was not impleaded as necessary party by the respondent No. 1 and 2.”

¶24

So far as legal heirs of respondent No.14-Santra (respondent No.15 herein) are concerned, till date they have not raised any challenge against the sanad taksim. Partition application was filed on 16.07.2009. Petitioner purchased land vide sale deed dated 02.11.2012. Thus, on the day the application for partition was filed, respondent No.2 was not co-sharer in the joint land and thus cannot claim to be a necessary or proper party on the said date.

¶25

In view thereof, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 11.05.2016 passed by Financial Commissioner cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. The Financial Commissioner shall decide revision afresh, in accordance with law within a period of 03 months from today.

¶26

4. Disposed off, accordingly.

¶27