CWP No.10523 of 2004

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No.10523 of 2004

Date of decision:- 14.09.2012

Baljit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON

Present:-

Mr. V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naresh Kaushal,

Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Senior Deputy Advocate General,

Haryana for respondents No.1 to 4.

Mr. Rishi Pal Rana, Advocate for

respondents No.34, 36 and 38.

Mr. D.S. Malik, Advocate for respondent No.35.

S.S. SARON J.

The petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the

Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 13.02.2003

(Annexure P-7) passed by the Collector, Thanesar, District

Kurukshetra (respondent No.3) as well as the order dated

19.05.2004 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala

Division, Ambala (respondent No.4) and for directing the

respondents- authorities to implement the order dated 25.07.2002

(Annexure P-6) passed by the Assistant Collector Grade-I, Thanesar

(respondent No.2).

The case relates to partition of land measuring 1312

Kanals 6 Marlas situated in Village Sudhpur, Tehsil Thanesar District

CWP No.10523 of 2004

-2-

Kurukshetra amongst 39 cosharers. The dispute at present primarily

relates to providing of a passage to the 'Kurrah' of Baljit Singh

(petitioner) now represented by his LRs, Bajrang Singh, Subhash

Chand and Hussan Lal sons of Baljit Singh (as per amended memo

of parties who have been impleaded vide order dated 30.09.2008

passed in CM No.19529 of 2008).

The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Thanesar (respondent

No.2) framed the mode of partition 'Naksha-Bey' on 4.8.1995 and

invited objections to the same. On 11.08.1995, Ami Singh

(respondent No.34), Hukam Singh (respondent No.35), Raj Singh

(respondent No.36), Manphool Singh, Jaipal Singh (respondent

No.37) and Shish Pal Singh (respondent No.38) submitted their

objections in respect of 'Naksha-Bey'. The Assistant Collector Ist

Grade Thanesar (respondent No.2) after hearing the objections vide

order dated 22.9.1995 (Annexure P-1) dismissed the same and

confirmed the 'Naksha-Bey'. The objection raised by the said

objectors-respondents regarding giving of a path to Baljit Singh

(petitioner) from the metalled road, which it was submitted was wrong

because for giving a path from the 'pucca' road six 'Killas' (acres) of

land would be utilized and consumed for the path, whereas for going

to the fields of Baljit Singh (petitioner) there was a Government

'Gohat' and by giving land from one 'Killa' a path could be provided

for the 'Kurrah' of Baljit Singh. Accordingly, it was prayed that

'Naksha-Bey' be amended. This was declined by the Assistant

Collector Ist Grade (respondent No.2) and the 'Naksha Bey' was

CWP No.10523 of 2004

-3-

accepted as had been prepared.

Ami Singh and others (respondents No.34 to 38) as also

Manphool Singh filed an appeal before the Collector, Thanesar

(respondent No.3) against Baljit Singh (petitioner) and others. The

Collector, Thanesar (respondent no.3) vide his order dated

28.11.1995 (Annexure P-2) partly accepted the appeal and directed

the Assistant Collector Grade-I, Thanesar (respondent no.2) to give a

path to the 'Kurrah' of Baljit Singh (petitioner) through Khasra

No.1169; besides, it was directed that Bara in Khasra No.451 be

given to all the co-sharers and the word 'etc.' be added after the

name of Jaipal Singh (respondent No.37) and Hukam Singh

(respondent no.38). Accordingly, it was directed that 'Naksha-Bey'

be amended and be confirmed after hearing the parties. It was

contended by Ami Singh and others (respondents No.34 to 38) as

also Manphool Singh before the Collector, Thanesar (respondent

No.3) that 'Naksha-Bey' had not been prepared