Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ritu Bahri, J.
Mir Singh and another – Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
CWP No.696, 18923 of 2014
Decided On : 29-05-2020
The court examines the powers of the Financial Commissioner under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. It concludes that the Financial Commissioner has wide powers to call for, examine, and revise the proceedings of Revenue Officers. The court also considers the procedure for partitioning agricultural land under the Act and finds that the partition proceedings in this case were carried out correctly and in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The judgment disposes of two petitions seeking quashing of orders related to the partition of land. The petitioners allege that the partition proceedings were carried out unfairly and against the agreed mode of partition. They also claim that the proceedings were manipulated to benefit a third party. The respondents argue that the partition was carried out correctly and in accordance with the law. They offer to exchange the land and make other accommodations, but the petitioners refuse. The Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision petition, finding no irregularities in the partition proceedings. The court examines the scope of the Financial Commissioner's powers under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and upholds the dismissal of the revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court examines the procedure for partitioning agricultural land under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. It notes that the partition proceedings had attained finality when the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, sanctioned the partition and issued the Sanad Takseem. The court also considers the powers of the Financial Commissioner to revise the proceedings under Section 16 of the Act. It concludes that the Financial Commissioner had the authority to examine the record and decline to interfere in the final order of partition. The court cites precedents to support its findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court finds that the partition proceedings were carried out correctly and in accordance with the law. It rejects the petitioners' claims of unfairness and manipulation. The court also notes that the petitioners refused offers to exchange the land and make other accommodations. It upholds the dismissal of the revision petition by the Financial Commissioner.
Result: The court dismisses the petitions, finding no merits in the claims made by the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
Ritu Bahri, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of CWP Nos.696 of 2014 and 18923 of 2014 together as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions.
2. Petitioners in CWP No.696 of 2014 are seeking quashing of the order dated 04.12.2013 (Annxure P-18) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dismissing their revision petition No.242/2013; order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sohna during partition proceedings and the order dated 02.08.2012 (Annexure P- 10 Collectively), whereby partition proceedings were concluded.
3. On 15.11.2006, Jaipal filed an application for partition of 08 Kanals of land against Mir Singh, Satpal, Mool Chand, Rattan. Another application dated 19.09.2007 (Annexure P-1) was filed by Bharta against Mir Singh, Rattan Singh and Jaipal for partition of land measuring 189 Kanals 18 Marlas. In this application, Bharta had admitted possession of Mir Singh over a parcel of land. To the above application, Mir Singh filed written statement dated 14.11.2007 (Annexure P-2) admitting possession as mentioned by Bharta. Rattan Singh and Jaipal filed a common written statement dated 12.12.2007 (Annexure P-3). In this written statement, they did not deny the possession of Mir Singh over the land mentioned therein. Later on, Bharta made a request for consolidating/clubbing the aforesaid partition applications. However, his request was rejected vide order dated 12.03.2008. Naksha 'Ka' was received by the Assistant Collector on 09.07.2008 and the matter was adjourned to 23.07.2008 for recording statements of the parties. Thereafter, the matter was kept on adjourning from time to time and on 08.06.2011, it was adjourned to 29.06.2011 for recording statement of the applicant. At that stage, application (Annexure P-4) for clubbing both the applications for partition was made by Bharta. On 29.06.2011, statement of Bharta was recorded. It was observed that several opportunities had already been afforded to the respondents and the matter was adjourned to 13.07.2011.
4. This order, as per petitioners, is a fabricated order. On 13.07.2011, statement of Mir Singh is shown to have been recorded. Thereafter, file was presented on 27.07.2011, on which date, the proposed mode of partition (Annexure P-12) was prepared and the matter was adjourned to 10.08.2011 for objections with regard to mode of partition. On 24.08.2011, objections were not filed. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, had observed that sufficient time had been given to the respondents for filing of objections. So, no further opportunity was shown to have been granted to Mir Singh and mode of partition was shown to have been accepted as it was. Copy of the same was ordered to be forwarded to Girdawar/Patwari Halqa to prepare naksha 'Kha'. The matter was adjourned to 07.09.2011 and thereafter, to 14.09.2011 and 05.10.2011 for the same purpose. Naksha 'Kha' is shown to have been received on 05.10.2011 and the matter was adjourned to 12.10.2012 for filing objection to the same. Order dated 12.10.2012 shows that Jaipal had not raised any objection to naksha 'kha' and said that it was prepared as per mode of partition. One opportunity was given to Mir Singh to file objections to naksha 'Kha'. On 19.10.2011, Jaipal did not raise any objection to naksha 'Kha'. It was observed in that order that Mir Singh had already been granted sufficient time for filing the objections. No further opportunity was granted to Mir Singh for filing objections. Accordingly, naksha 'Kha' was accepted as it was and the matter was adjourned to 23.11.2011 for calling naksha 'Zeem'.
5. On 02.11.2011, two appeals bearing case Nos.46 and 47 were filed by Jaipal against the order dated 27.02.2011 consolidating/clubbing applications that had been filed against the proposed mode of partition, which was said to have been prepared. On 23.11.2011, learned counsel for the parties appeared and intimation regarding stay of further proceedings had been gi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
