LPA No. 1674 of 2012 (O & M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

LPA No. 1674 of 2012 (O & M)

Date of Decision:- September 09, 2013

Mewa Singh

..............APPELLANT(S)

vs.

State of Haryana and others

...........RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA

Present:-

Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate,

for Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate,

for the appellant.

Mr. D. Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate,

for respondents no. 31 to 33.

JASBIR SINGH, J. (Oral)

This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. LPA Nos. 1674 and

1708 of 2012 as common question of fact and law is involved in both the

appeals. To dictate order, facts from LPA No. 1674 of 2012 are being taken

up.

Despite opportunities given, legal heirs of respondent no. 25

were not brought on record. Today again, a prayer has been made for

adjournment, which has been declined.

Dispute in this appeal is with regard to partition of land falling

in two joint khewats measuring 36 kanals 0 marla and 23 kanals 7 marlas

respectively. After hearing the parties, mode of partition (Annexure P-1)

was framed. Naksha Bey was prepared in terms of mode of partition. No

Gupta Shivani

2013.09.25 12:35

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

LPA No. 1674 of 2012 (O & M)

2

objection was filed by the appellant to the Naksha so prepared. It is on

record that before preparing Naksha Bey, Tehsildar and Kanungo went to

the spot. Naksha Bey was accepted. Thereafter, land falling in both the

khewats was partitioned on 08.10.2007 by the Collector, Karnal. It was

specifically noticed that as the appellant had not filed any objection to the

Naksha Bey which was prepared in terms of mode of partition, no relief can

be granted to him. It was further observed that land was partitioned after

spot visit made by the Tehsildar.

The appellant went in appeal, which was dismissed. Appellant

remained unsuccessful in revision also. Thereafter, he came to this Court by

filing CWP No. 17402 of 2010, which was dismissed by the learned Single

Judge on 19.09.2012.

Throughout, it is grievance of the petitioner that land which is

situated near to the abadi of the village is more valuable as compared to the

land falling in second tak, away from the village. It is further stated that as

per statements made by both the parties, before the Civil Court, valuation of

the land needs to be noticed when ordering partition of the land. The Trial

Judge dealt with the above said objections and observed as under:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner was,

however, vehement in saying that the land which is

located near the abadi is much more valuable and

certainly was not comparable in value with the land

which was away from the road may be at a distance of

one acre. The counsel was then asked to show if any

prayer of application was moved before the Assistant

Collector before carrying out or incorporating the

Gupta Shivani

2013.09.25 12:35

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

LPA No. 1674 of 2012 (O & M)

3

correction for mode of partition on the basis of Civil

Court order, which the counsel could not show but it is

conceded that the applicant was for amending Naksha

Bey on the basis of Civil Court order and no prayer was

made for amending the mode of partition. Naksha Bey

was prepared subsequently to the date of order passed

by the Civil court and instead of filing this applicatioin,

more appropriate course for the petitioner was to seek

amendment to mode of partition. No such prayer

however was made. Earlier mode of partition was

made to which the petitioner had not raised any

objection. Naksha Bey was required to be prepared on

the basis of the mode of partition and there is no

allegation that the Naksha Bey was prepared even after

the decree of the Civil court was not as per the mode