Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sudhir Mittal, J.
Atma Devi & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No.8704 of 2022
Decided On : 17-05-2022
Partition - Question of Title - Interpretation of Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners objected to a partition application on the ground of a pending question of title before the Civil Court. Their objection was rejected, and the present writ petition was filed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the civil suit was filed after the presentation of the partition applications, and thus, the authorities were justified in dismissing the objection raised by the petitioners. The writ petition was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the objection to the partition application based on a pending question of title before the Civil Court was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, which stipulates that if a question of title is pending as on the date of filing of the partition application, the Revenue Officer may refuse to proceed further with the partition. The court found that the civil suit was filed after the presentation of the partition applications, justifying the dismissal of the objection.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as it was found to have no merit.
JUDGMENT
Sudhir Mittal, J. (Oral) - The petitioners were parties in a partition application filed by the private respondents. They objected to the partition on the ground of question of title being pending before the Civil Court. The objection was rejected and appeal and revisions filed against the order have failed. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that two revision petitions were filed before the Financial Commissioner because two separate applications were filed for partition of land in two different khewats. Question of title was raised in both the partition applications.
3. It is submitted that the Financial Commissioner was in error in dismissing the revision petitions because a question of title is pending adjudication before the Civil Court. Although, the civil suit has been dismissed, appeal thereagainst is pending.
4. The partition applications were filed on 01.08.2012 whereas the civil suit being referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners was filed inthe year 2013. It is thus, evident that the civil suit was filed to keep the partition proceedings in abeyance. Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 stipulates that if a question of title is involved, the Revenue Officer may decline to proceed further with the partition until the question has been determined by a competent Court. This signifies that if a question of title is pending as on the date of filing of the partition application, the Revenue Officer may refuse to proceed further with the partition. In the instant case, the civil suit has been filed after the presentation of the partition applications and thus, the authorities below were justified in dismissing the objection raised by the petitioners.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.
The interpretation of Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 in relation to the timing of filing partition applications and pending questions of title before the Civil Court.
The interpretation of Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 in relation to the timing of the filing of partition applications and pending questions of title before the Civil Court.
Locus standi is crucial in challenging partition proceedings, and subsequent purchasers after the completion of partition lack the standing to challenge the proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner and the Commissioner in revising partition orders under the un-amended and ame....
The court upheld the validity of the partition proceedings under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, affirming that due process was followed and petitioners had adequate opportunity to raise objections, whi....
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
