Partition applications cannot be consolidated when the parties are not identical, and the mode of partition must be challenged through the appropriate legal remedies.

JUDGMENT

Sudhir Mittal, J. - This judgment shall decide both the aforementioned cases as the same orders are under challenge in both cases.

2. Respondent No.5 filed two separate applications for partition of land comprised in khewat No.32 and that comprised in khewat No.33. The land comprised in khewat No.32 measures 48 kanals and that comprised in khewat No.33 measures 08 kanals. On 05.11.2012, statement of the authorized representative of the petitioner was recorded, whereby, he stated that both khewats belong to the same parties and thus, both the partition applications may be consolidated. Proposed mode of partition was received on the same date, i.e. 05.11.2012 and the petitioner submitted objections to the same. It was reiterated that the two separate partition applications be consolidated. Vide order dated 13.12.2012, the objections to the proposed mode of partition were rejected and the mode of partition was affirmed. While rejecting the objections, the Assistant Collector, First Grade held that owners of the two khewats being different, the applications cannot be consolidated. Thereafter, Naksha Bay was summoned for 18.12.2012. The petitioner filed objections on 10.01.2013 thereto. The objection was that the land given to it did not adjoin other land owned by it. The objections were rejected vide order dated 04.02.2013. Petitioner's appeal against the rejection of objections to Naksha Bay was dismissed on 08.04.2013. The appellate order was challenged by way of a revision before the Commissioner, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 16.09.2013. Meanwhile, sanad takseem was issued on 17.04.2013. The sanad as well as order dated 04.02.2013 of the Assistant Collector, First Grade rejecting objections to Naksha Bay were challenged by way of second revision before the Financial Commissioner. The appellate andrevisional orders passed, meanwhile, were also subjected to challenge. However, the petitioner failed and the revision petition was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 19.02.2014. Review filed was also rejected vide order dated 23.07.2014 and thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The land comprised in khewat No.33 was owned by three entities, namely, the petitioner, respondent No.5 and M/s Fori Propbuild Private Limited, whereas, the land comprised in khewat No.32 was owned only by the petitioner and respondent No.5. It is not disputed that M/s Fori Propbuild Private Limited as well as the petitioner are 100% subsidiary companies of Emaar-MGF Limited.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner and M/s Fori Propbuild Private Limited were 100% subsidiary companies of Emaar-MGF Limited, the Courts below were in error in rejecting the prayer for consolidating the two separate partition applications. The approved mode of partition has not been properly implemented in the Naksha Bay and thus, the objections thereto should have been allowed. The final partition has resulted in inequity as the land given to the petitioner is not contiguous with other land owned by him and which is in immediate vicinity of the land in dispute.

5. In response, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5 have submitted that the petitioner cannot raise the issue of non-consolidation of the two partition applications as the request for consolidation was rejected vide order dated 13.12.2012, whereby, theobjections to the mode of partition were dismissed. Section 118 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (as applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides for an appeal against the order accepting the mode of partition within 15 days from the date of the order and the filing thereof operates as an automatic stay of proceedings before the Assistant Collector. No second appeal is provided against the appellate order. This remedy was not availed by the petitioner. Reliance has been placed upon Lala Ram Vs. Financia