IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Sr. No. 113

CWP-9482-2022 (O&M)

Date of decision : 06.05.2022

Kinder Kaur and others

..... Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

..... Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL

Present:

Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate, for the petitioners.

*****

SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (Oral)

Four separate applications were filed for partition of land

comprised in different khewats. The partition proceedings commenced on

08.10.2013 and concluded on 19.12.2014. Sanad was issued on 21.05.2015.

A perusal of the record shows that the petitioners have the

following grievances against the sanad:-

(i) Proceedings were completed within ten hearings.

(ii) Section 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 having

been violated.

(iii) No opportunity granted to the parties to object to the

Naksha Urra.

(iv) Clubbing of land comprised in four separate khewats and

(v) Grant of more valuable land to the private respondents.

The first argument raised is that the clubbing of four separate

khewats in which the co-sharers were different was illegal. A query was

raised by this Court, whether, the petitioners had objected to the order of

clubbing. In response, learned counsel for the petitioners has taken the

Court through order dated 17.09.2014 (Annexure P-3) to submit that the

RAMANDEEP SINGH

2022.05.07 12:28

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP-9482-2022 (O&M)

2

order of clubbing was passed on the said date and the case was adjourned to

26.09.2014 calling for Naksha Arra. This shows that no opportunity was

granted to the petitioners to object to the clubbing.

The argument is not acceptable. Even, if the case had been

adjourned for Naksha Arra, the petitioner could have filed an application

objecting to the order of clubbing. No such application having been filed,

the petitioners are not entitled to argue that they were not granted

opportunity to object to the clubbing.

It is next contended that the Financial Commissioner was in

error in dismissing the revision petition on the ground that no objections

were filed to the mode of partition. In fact, opportunity for the said purpose

was not provided as is evident from order dated 04.06.2014 (Annexure P-2).

In fact, two separate orders were passed on the same date, i.e. 04.06.2014,

the other order being as reproduced at page No.12 of the writ petition,

wherein, it has been recorded that none was present on behalf of the

respondents and no objections had been filed to the Naksha Urra.

A perusal of the file shows that there is no denying the fact that

two separate orders were passed on the same date, i.e. 04.06.2014. Vide the

first order (reproduced at page No.12 of the writ petition), mode of partition

was called for on 11.07.2014, whereas, vide the second order (Annexure

P-2), mode of partition was approved and Naksha Arra was called for on

18.07.2014. This did not deprive the petitioners of an opportunity to object

to the mode of partition by filing an application in that regard. No specific

opportunity has been provided by the Assistant Collector, yet, the petitioners

were required to be vigilant.

RAMANDEEP SINGH

2022.05.07 12:28

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP-9482-2022 (O&M)

3

They have not been vigilant enough and thus, the Financial Commissioner

was justified in recording that no objections were filed to the mode of

partition.

No other argument has been raised.

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition has no merit

and is dismissed.

(SUDHIR MITTAL)

JUDGE

06.05.2022

Ramandeep Singh

Whether speaking / reasoned

Yes / No

Whether Rep