SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(P&H) 606

RAJIVE BHALLA, AMOL RATTAN SINGH
Mir Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Ashish Chopra, Advocate.
For the Respondents no.1 to 4 (in CWP No.696 of 2014)
For the Respondents no.1 to 6 (in CWP No.11993 of 2014): Mr. D.Khanna, Addl.A.G.,Haryana.
For the Respondents no.5 and 6 (in CWP No.696 of 2014)
For the Respondents no.7 (in CWP No.11993 of 2014):Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Yogesh Goyal, Advocate.
For the Respondent no.8 (in CWP No.696 of 2014):Mr. M.L.Sarin, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate.
For the Respondent no.9 (in CWP No.11993 of 2014):Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent no.11 (in CWP No.11993 of 2014):Mr. Durgesh Aggarwal, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.: - Civil Writ Petition Nos.696 of 2014, 11993 of 2014 and 18923 of 2014, shall be decided together, though, by passing separate order as there are certain points that are common.

2. Before proceeding to decide the matter, it would be necessary to clarify that Civil Writ Petitions No.696 and 11993 of 2014 involve challenge to orders directing partition of agricultural land, whereas Civil Writ Petition No.18923 of 2014 involves challenge to the grant of a licence to develop a part of the land into a colony.

Civil Writ Petition No.696 of 2014

3. Mir Singh and Rattan Singh, the petitioners, pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing, order dated 04.12.2013 (Annexure P-18), passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, dismissing their revision, order dated 19.10.2011, passed, by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sohna, during partition proceedings and the order dated 02.08.2012 (collectively Annexure P-10) concluding partition proceedings and drawing up the final document of partition, called, the “Sanad Takseem”.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that partition proceedings are vitiated by illegalities that render t












































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top