Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bant Singh And Others vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 14 February, 2012
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CWP No. 20317 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 20317 of 2010
Date of Decision: February 14, 2012
Bant Singh and others.
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Punjab and others.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab,
for respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
Mr. Manish Singla, Advocate,
for respondent Nos. 6 to 12.
Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate,
for respondent No. 43.
Mr. R.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate,
for respondent No. 45.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 28.04.2010 (Annexure P/7) passed by respondent No.2 - Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry Punjab, order dated 10.11.2009 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No.3 - Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, order dated 16.04.2009 (Annexure P/3) passed by CWP No. 20317 of 2010 2 respondent No.4 - Collector (Sub Divisional Magistrate), Sunam and order dated 19.02.2009 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No.5 - Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sunam, in partition proceedings.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 6 to 12 filed an application for partition of land measuring 480 kanals 6 marlas, situated in Village Dhandial, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade called Naksha `Urra' to which, the petitioners filed objections (Annexure P/1) stating therein that the land has already been privately partitioned in the year 1967 and on the basis of the said partition, the parties are in possession of specific khasra numbers as per their shares. It is further submitted that respondent Nos. 6 to 12 had earlier moved an application for partition, as per jamabandi for the year 1971-72. The said application was decided by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide order dated 17.01.1978 (Annexure P/6). Furthermore, another application was moved by respondent Nos. 6 to 12 in the year 1975, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.11.1994. Concealing these material facts, the present application has been filed. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade did not consider the objections of the petitioners and approved Naksha `Urra' without passing any speaking order vide order dated 19.02.2009 (Annexure P/2). Against that, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector. Vide order dated 16.04.2009 (Annexure P/3), the Collector dismissed the appeal. Further, revision petition filed before the Divisional Commissioner by the petitioners has been dismissed vide order dated 10.11.2009 (Annexure P/4). Thereafter, petitioners filed second revision before the Financial Commissioner, which has also been CWP No. 20317 of 2010 3 dismissed vide order dated 28.04.2010 (Annexure P/7). Hence, this writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
A perusal of order dated 19.02.2009 (Annexure P/2) makes it clear that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade has not applied his mind while approving Naksha `Urra' and has not considered the objections raised by the petitioners to the continuity of the proceedings in application for partition. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade has passed a non-speaking order without dealing with the objections, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The revenue authorities i.e. the Collector has also not taken into consideration order dated 17.01.1978 (Annexure P/6) whereby it has been specifically held that as per rapat roznamcha No.94 dated 07.11.1967, the parties have got recorded their separate shares and got conducted khasra girdawari of the land as per possession, since then the parties are in separate possession of specific khasra numbers. The co-sharers have further mortgaged their specific khasra numbers. The entries in the jamabandi carry presumption of truth. The possession of the parties over separate specific khasra numbers in pursuance of rapat roznamcha, proves their long separate standing possession and indicates that the private partition between the parties was effected. The finding recorded by the Assistant Collector First Grade vide order dated 17.01.1978 (Annexure P/6) has not been challenged and it has become final. These documents have not been considered by the Commissioner, as well as, the Financial Commissioner.
CWP No. 20317 of 2010 4
In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 19.02.2009 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade is a non-speaking order; similarly, the orders of the Collector and Commissioner, as well as, the Financial Commissioner who have not taken into consideration the effect of order dated 17.01.1978 (Annexure P/6) are not sustainable. As such, the above impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is allowed and the case is remanded to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to decide the matter afresh by passing a well-reasoned speaking order after taking into consideration rapat roznamcha No. 94 dated 07.11.1967 order dated 17.01.1978 (Annexure P/6) and another partition application which has been dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 29.11.1994. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 26.03.2012.
No order as to costs.
February 14, 2012 (Paramjeet Singh) vkd Judge