IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 12.11.2024 Date of decision : 11.02.2025 Balwant and another ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :- Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, AAG Haryana.

Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for respondents No. 6 to 10.

Mr. Lal Singh Sandhu, Advocate for applicant in CM-5730-CWP-2024.

-.- -.-

HARSH BUNGER, J. CM-5730-CWP-2024

1. This is an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for impleading the applicant-Amandeep son of Om Parkash as respondent No. 15 in the instant writ petition.

2. The aforesaid application has been filed by the applicant-Amandeep on the plea that petitioner No. 1-Balwant had entered into an agreement dated 03.07.2014 for total sale consideration of Rs. 11,00,000/-, whereunder a sale deed was to be executed on 05.01.2015, however, since petitioner No. 1-Balwant did not perform his part of the agreement, accordingly, the applicant-Amandeep filed a Civil Suit No. 6 dated 22.04.2015, seeking specific performance of agreement dated 03.07.2014, which was decreed by the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2017 (attached as Annexure A-1 with the application). It is further stated that in compliance of the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 21.10.2017, sale deed bearing Vasika No. 2941, dated 26.11.2018, has been executed and according to which, he has become a co-sharer to the extent of 8 Kanal. On the aforesaid plea, the applicant-Amandeep is seeking impleadment in the instant writ petition by stating that he is a proper and necessary party.

3. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the applicant, however, I do not find any merit in the same for the simple reason that concededly the applicant-Amandeep had entered into an agreement dated 03.07.2014 with petitioner No. 1-Balwant during the pendency of the partition proceedings initiated by Smt. Rukma and he would be entitled to avail his remedies in terms of judgment and decree dated 21.10.2017 and/or sale deed dated 26.10.2018, independently against his vendor.

4. The instant application is accordingly dismissed in the aforestated terms.

1. Petitioners have filed the instant civil writ petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the Sanad Takseem dated 19.08.2014 (Annexure P-13) and all partition proceedings; order dated 10.02.2016 (Annexure P-14), passed by learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana in ROR No. 502/2013-14 and also order dated 03.09.2019 (Annexure P-8), passed by learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana in ROR No. 337/2015-16.

2. Briefly, one Rukma Devi (respondent No. 14) filed an application seeking partition of joint land, situated in village Chilkani Dhab, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa. The said partition proceedings were contested by present petitioners, inter alia, on the plea that they are in possession of 97 kanal, 2 marla land, out of which half share is under their possession in the capacity as co-owners, whereas the remaining 1/2 share is under their possession as tenants since 1977. It was stated that the tenancy rights of the petitioners were intact as they had never been evicted from the land in question nor had they relinquished their possession.

2.1 Petitioners further claimed that their possession in the capacity of tenants was under the co-sharer Smt. Ram Piari, who became co-sharer to the extent of 1/3^rd share in the total land measuring 291 kanal 5 marla, vide mutation No. 369 and the petitioners were inducted as tenants by Smt. Ram Piari since crop Sauni 1977.

2.2 It is the case of the petitioners that Smt. Ram Piari sold her 1/3^rd share to the petitioners by surrendering her ownership rights as well as physical possession, vide sale deed dated 20.06.1979.

2.3 It is stated that one Sahib Ram challenged the sale deed dated 20.06.1979 a