The court upheld that participation in previous proceedings negates claims of lack of notification due to incorrect address.

JUDGMENT :

HARSH BUNGER, J. 

Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India , is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 30.08.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Assistant Collector, First Grade, Narnaul as well as order dated 09.08.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

2. Briefly, respondent No.3 filed an application, seeking partition of joint land comprised in khewat No.1617, total land 31 bighas 8 biswas. The present petitioner is stated to have been proceeded against ex-parte in the afore-said partition proceedings; however, neither the order nor the date of the order whereby, the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte is forthcoming.

2.1 Be that as it may, it appears that the final order of partition/sanad takseem came to be issued on 30.08.2018 (Annexure P-1).

2.2 It transpires that the petitioner challenged the partition proceedings/order by filing a revision before the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.08.2024 (Annexure P-7). Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Heard.

4. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.3, while submitting the partition application, has given wrong address of the petitioner so that he may not take part in the partition proceedings.

5. I have considered the afore-said submission raised on behalf of the petitioner; however, I do not find any merit in the same as learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to refer to any material/document, especially the jamabandi on the basis of which, the partition was sought; so as to indicate that the correct address of the petitioner (as claimed by him in this petition) was recorded therein. It has also not been shown from any material that respondent No.3 was aware of the correct address of the petitioner (as claimed by him in this petition) and that he intentionally gave the wrong address.

5.1 In the absence of any material to indicate that respondent No.3 was aware of the correct address of the petitioner (as claimed by him in this petition), either from the revenue records or any other document whatsoever, the afore-said plea is found to be without any merit and the same is accordingly rejected.

6. That apart, the findings returned by the learned Financial Commissioner would show that the petitioner had pursued his case before the learned Assistant Collector and that his counsel has also given no objection on naksha bey and the said fact stands recorded in the zimini order dated 06.07.2018. It has also come in the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner that on 28.08.2018, the learned counsel for the present petitioner had duly appeared and submitted his reply before the learned Assistant Collector and also that the petitioner herein never laid any challenge to naksha bey.

6.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to controvert the afore-said observations made by the learned Financial Commissioner.

7. Considering the totality of circumstances, once the petitioner had appeared before the learned Assistant Collector and participated in the partition proceedings, where he had the opportunity to represent his case and also to raise objection against Naksha `Alif’, mode of partition, naksha bey, naksha zeem; however, having failed to do so, the petitioner, after completion of the partition proceedings, cannot be permitted to re-open the partition matter at this stage.

8. In view of the above, I find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is, here