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, which they failed to do.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, J.

This order will dispose of the instant writ petition alongwith bunch of other petitions bearing No. CWP-22145-2013, CWP-20448-2013 and CWP-22174-2013, COCP-1821-2021, COCP-1822-2021 since the facts and circumstances are similar, and all these petitions involves identical question of law.

2. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of orders dated 03.08.2011 (Annexure P-7), 04.07.2011 (Annexure P-8), 15.05.2012 (Annexures P-9 & P-10) and 09.07.2011 (Annexure P-11), 08.04.2013 (Annexure P-12) vide which Sanand Taksam was prepared only with the intent to facilitate grant of licence in favour of respondent No.5-M/s Anushria Computech Private Limited now known as M/s Ferrous Luxury World Private Limited.

3. The petitioners have also sought a direction to be issued to respondents for carrying out partition proceedings afresh by affording appropriate opportunity of hearing to all the parties and the procedure established in law as per mode of partition and after following due procedure apart from a direction restraining the respondents from creating any third party right in encumbrance-mortgage on the entire chunk of land measuring 88 kanals-12 marlas.

4. This Court in order to avoid any gravity or repetition of facts would take the brief background and the facts from the petition bearing CWP No.25226 of 2013, which was argued as lead case with the consent of all the parties being representing by their advocates before this Court at the time of hearing, which concluded on 25.08.2023.

5. The case set out of the instant petition is with the claim of the petitioner as owner of land measuring 3 kanals 7 marlas out of a total 88 kanals 12 marlas situated in Khewat No.6/6, 7/7 and Khewat No.10, Khewat No.13/13 etc. The respondent No.5-M/s Anushria Computech Private Limited now known as M/s Ferrous Luxury World Private Limited moved an application seeking partition of the agricultural land in question measuring a total of 88 kanals 12 marlas and on receiving the notice of said partition proceedings, the petitioner appeared and moved counter application for dismissal of the said proceedings with the averment that relevant revenue records have not been attached. The said application was dismissed on 23.05.2011. It is however, material to record that Naksha Alif was called and subsequently sanctioned on 07.06.2011, whereas Naksha 'Kha' & 'Gha' was called after preparing the mode of partition. The proposed mode of partition is available on record as Annexure P-6 dated nil. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal against the orders dated 09.05.2011, 23.05.2011 as well as 07.06.2011 including the proceedings vide which the Naksha 'Bay' and Naksha 'Jeem' had been called from Halqa Girdawar after preparation of the mode of partition by single order. Subsequent thereof, the partition application was accepted vide order dated 04.07.2015 (Annexure P-8) by the Assistant Collector and he issued Sanad Takseen on 03.08.2011 (Annexure P-7). The appeal preferred before the learned Collector, Faridabad vide order dated 15.05.2011 (Annexure P-10) against the orders dated 03.05.2011, 24.05.2011 and 07.06.2011, whereas against the order dated 04.07.2011, which was dismissed by the Collector, Faridabad on the same day i.e., 15.05.2012, but by a separate order (Annexure P-9). Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 15.05.2011, a revision petition came to be filed by the petitioner in the Court of Commissioner, Gurugram, Division Gurugram, which was also dismissed on 09.07.2011 (Annexure P-11) and consequently ROR before the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary Revenue Department, Government of Haryana was filed and the same also met with the fate of dismissal vide order dated 08.04.2013 (Annexure P-12).

6. It is in this background and chain of litigation, the instant bunch of petitions came before this Court primarily admit