Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 December, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 December, 2012

Bench: Ranjit Singh

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                    Civil Writ Petition No. 8525 of 2012
                      Date of decision : 06.12.2012

Ramesh Kumar
                                                              .....Petitioner

                           VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

                                                              ....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:     Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana
             for the State.

             Mr. S.K. Panwar, Advocate
             for respondents No. 5, 7 and 8

             Mr. Deepak Chaudhary, Advocate
             for respondents No. 9 to 11 and 15

             Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with
             Mr. R.K. Dogra, Advocate
             for respondent No. 12

                                  ****
RANJIT SINGH, J.

The grievance raised in the present petition is against the partition application which has been finalised and Sanad Takseem is issued.

Though notice in this case has been issued, counsel appearing for the respondents has orally raised an objection to submit that petitioner has an alternative remedy to invoke jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner, even when final Sanad Takseem is issued. In support he has placed reliance on Amar Civil Writ Petition No. 8525 of 2012 2 Khan and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2009(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 741 where this view has been taken.

Counsel for the petitioner would refer to Ranbir Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2005(3) PLR 519 wherein it has been held that final order of partition can be impugned by filing writ petition. This has subsequently been considered in Amar Singh's case (supra) and clear view has been taken that the Financial Commissioner can exercise powers even when Sanad Takseem is issued. The petitioner, accordingly, is relegated to his remedy for filing revision before the Financial Commissioner. If the petitioner does so within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be entertained and decided in accordance with law.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

December 06, 2012                               ( RANJIT SINGH )
reena                                                JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court