CWP-26956-2022

-1-

111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

CWP-26956-2022

Date of Decision : 24.01.2023

MOHAN LAL AND ORS.

.....Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present :

Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate and

Mr. Shubham Singh, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

****

SURESHWAR THAKUR

, J. (Oral)

Factual Background

1.

The petitioners herein instituted an application for partition

before the Revenue Officer concerned. The said petition is appended to

the writ petition as Annexure P-2. A reading of the order drawn, on

22nd October, 2018, and, which occurs at page No. 46, of the instant

writ petition, discloses that the Revenue Officer concerned, had

concurred with the argument addressed before him, by the litigant

concerned, that since there, is an order made by the learned Civil Court

concerned, hence staying the drawing of further proceedings in the

partition application, besides, since a question of title is involved in the

partition application. Therefore, he formed an opinion that there is no

justification in continuing the partition proceedings. Consequently, the

learned Revenue Officer concerned, adjourned the partition application

KAVNEET SINGH

2023.01.27 13:30

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-26956-2022

-2-

sine die, till a decision on the civil suit concerned, is recorded by the

Civil Court concerned.

2.

The above order became challenged by the petitioners

herein before the learned Revisional Court. The learned Revisional

Court through an order, made upon the revision petition concerned,

made a direction that the above said order, as made by the learned

Collector concerned, is ridden with a gross fallacy. Therefore, it

proceeded to direct the Revenue Officer concerned, to conclude

proceedings in the partition application but after affording an adequate

opportunity of hearing to all the co-owners concerned. The petitioners

who are the applicants in the partition application, are yet aggrieved

from the order passed by the learned Revisional Court, and, as becomes

embodied in Annexure P-1. Thus, they have accessed this Court.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contends

with much vigor, before this Court, that since a suit qua the joint estates

involved in the partition application, is subjudice before the learned

Civil Court concerned, therefore but when naturally a question of

entitlement, does get sparked, qua the respective entitlements of the co-

sharers concerned, to seek partition by metes and bounds of the joint

lands, which are enclosed in the partition application. Therefore, it is

contended that until the apposite question of title becomes settled by

the learned Civil Court concerned, rather thereupto, the Revenue

Officer concerned, as, seized of the partition application, be restrained

from holding further progresses, in the partition application. In

consequence, it is contended that the order challenged before this Court

requires an interference being made by this Court.

KAVNEET SINGH

2023.01.27 13:30

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-26956-2022

-3-

Reason for not staying the taking of further proceedings in the

partition application.

4.

For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the above made

submission is completely rudderless, and, is rejected. The learned

counsel for the petitioners has focussed, upon the fact that since a

reading of Annexure P-7, underscores the fact that since the Revenue

Court concerned, has been aptly restrained from taking further

proceedings in the partition application. Therefore, the instant writ

petition is amenable for being allowed b