Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rati Ram Son Of Chandu Lal @ Chandgi Son Of ... vs The Financial Commissioner on 23 April, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.7300 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.04.2012
Rati Ram son of Chandu Lal @ Chandgi son of Jahria, resident of
Village Dhigana, Tehsil and District Jind.
...Petitioner
versus
The Financial Commissioner, Civil Secretariat, Haryana,
Chandigarh, and others.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. The petition in challenge is against the orders passed by the respective authorities sanctioning a partition before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Jind. The petitioner had not caused his appearance and ex parte proceedings were initiated to approve the partition. The appeal was disposed of holding that sanad taksim had been issued and that the hearing of the appeal itself was beyond jurisdiction. In a further revision to the appropriate authority, Civil Writ Petition No.7300 of 2012 (O&M) -2- it had been held that the only contest was with reference to khasra No.132/1/1 and the major extent had been granted only to the petitioner and the remaining extent of land in the said khasra had been partitioned to be allotted to the private respondent only to complete the shares. The Financial Commissioner has made observation to the effect that there was not even a mention anywhere in the written reply that his own tubewell existed in the said property allotted to the respondents. The counsel wants contend that this had been taken as a ground of appeal.
2. The authorities have observed that the petitioner was only interested in prolonging the matter and defying the partition without even giving his objection to the partition in the manner sought before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. The issue remains purely factual and the appropriateness or otherwise of the partition ordered cannot be said for reopening before this Court under Article 226 unless the order shown to be ex facie illegal or by an authority not competent to pass the order. The merits of the contention themselves cannot remain for an adjudication if they are dependent wholly on factual consideration. The intervention sought through the writ petition, therefore, ought to fail and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 23.04.2012 sanjeev