C.W.P. No. 17402 of 2010

-1-

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

…

C.W.P. No. 17402 of 2010

Date of decision: September 19,2012

Mewa Singh

..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Haryana and others

..Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh

Present:

Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana

for respondent Nos. 1 to 4

Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate

for respondent Nos. 31 to 33.

...

Ranjit Singh,J

(Oral)

This order shall dispose of two writ petitions, i.e., (i)

C.W.P. No.17402 of 2010- Mewa Singh Versus State of Haryana

and others and (ii) C.W.P. No.17880 of 2010- Mewa Singh Versus

State of Haryana and others involving common question of law.

The facts are being taken from CWP No.17402 of 2010.

The petitioner filed an application for partition under

Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The dispute

arose between the parties in respect of the partition. The suit for

declaration was also filed by the petitioner along with an application

to the effect that judgment and decree dated 31.1.1994 passed by

the Sub Judge in a Civil Suit No. 78 of 1994 was wrong. As per the

petitioner, the matter was settled ultimately by way of compromise

C.W.P. No. 17402 of 2010

-2-

and the suit was disposed of on the statement made by the parties.

The order in this regard is Annexure P4 which was passed on

18.2.2006.

As is evident, the total area of the land is at two

different places where one piece is situated abutting abadi of the

village and the second area is located away and is being used for

agricultural purposes. It is also stated that the area near the abadi

is abutting the main road. The petitioner has approached this Court

only with a limited prayer that the area was required to be allotted

in partition as per the valuation on the basis of the order passed by

the Lok Adalat. As per the petitioner, the partition is done without

taking this aspect into consideration. Infact, by the time, the order

was passed by the Lok Adalat, the mode of partition has already

been prepared. However, Naksha Bey was prepared subsequently

on 20.2.2007. The petitioner claims to have filed objections against

Naksha Bey but still did not challenge the mode of partition. The

application for modifying the Naksha Bey was rejected against

which appeal was also rejected. The petitioner, thereafter, had filed

revision petition before the Commissioner which was also

dismissed on 18.2.2010. The petitioner then approached the

Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner also rejected

the revision petition by observing that the distance between the two

portions of land is only one acre and it will not make any difference

about the valuation aspect. Terming these orders to be perverse,

the petitioner has filed Civil Writ Petition to challenge these orders.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his

grievance only to the finding and observation recorded in Annexure

C.W.P. No. 17402 of 2010

-3-

P4. As per this, the parties had made a statement that they will be

bound by the partition proceedings which were pending before the

court and the partition will be decided on the basis of value of the

land, which was accepted by them. The counsel accordingly would

contend that irrespective of the mode having been prepared prior

thereto, the partition was required to be effected by keeping in

mind the value of the land and in that context, the order of partition

was to be made by keeping the value of land in view as was

agreed between the parties.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

would refer to the order passed by the Collector as well as by the

Financial Commissioner to contend that this aspect was

consciously considered by all the authorities concerned. The

Financial Commissioner rejected this plea of the petit