Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranbir Singh vs Financial Commissioner And Ors. on 23 May, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)141PLR519
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: J.S. Narang, Rajive Bhalla
JUDGMENT Rajive Bhalla, J.
1. This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 7419 and 7420 of 2005, as common question of fact and law are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts have been extracted from C.W.P. No. 7419 of 2005.
2. The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 18.10.2002 (Annexure P-10), dated 18.4.2003 (Annexure P-12), dated 24.11.2004 (Annexure P-156), passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Rohtak, the Collector/D.R.O. Rohtak and the Commissioner, Rohtak Division Rohtak and Sanad Takseem, dated 26.6.2003 (Annexure P-24).
3. The petitioner, along with Umed Singh and others, filed an application for partition of land bearing Khewat Nos. 715/645 and 716/646, measuring 1035 kanals and 11 marlas, situated in village Bahu Akbarpur, Tehsil and District Rohtak. Respondent Nos. 5 to 23, filed a reply, accepting the mode of partition but pleaded that possession be disturbed only where necessary. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, after a spot inspection, and a consideration of the objections, framed the mode of partition.
4. No appeal was preferred against the mode of partition by any of the parties, though they claimed to have filed objections to the spot inspection, which, as per the averments in the writ petition, were rejected, while sanctioning the mode of partition. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Rohtak, thereafter, directed the field staff to prepare "Naksha Kha". The petitioner preferred objections against the "Naksha Kha", pursuant whereto the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rohtak, while amending the "Naksha Kha", provided a water course and a passage to each block vide order dated 18.10.2002 (Annexure P-10).
5. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Rohtak impugning the aforementioned order. Vide order dated 18.4.2003 (Annexure P-12), the Collector, after inspecting the land and examining the matter in detail, dismissed the appeal.
6. A revision, filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, was dismissed, vide order dated 24.11.2004 (Annexure P-15), on the ground that as the Sanad Takseem had been drawn up, partition proceedings stood concluded and, therefore, revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to entertain any further proceedings. The order of the Commission was challenged, by way of revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 9.2.2005 (Annexure P-16), with liberty to seek legal remedy regarding the orders, passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade Rohtak. The petitioner has now preferred the present writ petition.
7. Counsel for the petitioner contends that as the Sanad Takseem had attained finality, the Commissioner rightly declined to interfere in the matter. However, as the Punjab Land Revenue Act does not provide any appeal or revision, against a final order of partition, the petitioner is well within his rights to impugn the proceedings for partition by filing a writ petition. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported as Raja Ram alias Rajender and Anr. v. Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Hisar and Ors., 2001(I) P.L.J. 1. It is further contended that the orders dated 18.10.2002 (Annexure P-10), 18.4.2003 (Annexure P-12), 24.11.2004 (Annexure P-15), are illegal and void, as no spot inspection was carried out by either officer. In support thereof, the petitioner has placed on record an affidavit of one Mahabir son of Ruldu Ram, the alleged independent witness to the spot inspection, who has deposed that no spot inspection was carried out in his presence and his signatures were obtained, in support of the spot inspection, similarly by one Samera son of Deepu by deception. It is further alleged that pursuant to the partition proceedings, the possession have not been exchanged and in support thereof affidavits of Raghbir Lambardar, Prem Singh and Ved Parkash, who are the alleged independent witnesses, and the affidavits of Silak, Ishwar Singh and the petitioner have been annexed with the present petition.
8. On merits, the proceedings are impugned on the plea that the quality of land being dissimilar, partition should have been effected, on the basis of the quality of land. No passage has been provided to the petitioner in Killa No. 148/1, and possessions have been directed to be exchanged in violation of the mode of partition. It is further alleged that the spot inspections were carried out by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade and the Collector without service of notice on any of the parties.
9. We have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings, as also the impugned orders. It is no doubt true that the Punjab Land Revenue Act does not provide a remedy against the final order of partition, which is concluded by the drawing up of the "Sanad Takseem". However, as has been held in Raja Ram alias Rajender and another's case (supra), the final order of partition can be impugned by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, while examining the orders, passed in partition proceedings, this Court does not appraise the correctness thereof as an appellate or revisional forum. This Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction, would continue itself to examine any legal infirmities in the proceedings. Examination of findings of fact would be beyond the purview of this Court's jurisdiction.
10. We have examined the orders, passed by the revenue authorities, perused the pleadings and are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or perversity that would warrant the issuance of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The primary challenge to the proceedings for partition are based upon affidavits of the witnesses to the spot inspection, carried out by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade and the Collector. In these affidavits, the deponents deny the factum of spot inspection. In our opinion, these affidavits are self serving documents, procured by the petitioner as a last resort to stall the partition proceedings. They were not filed before the revenue authorities and were obtained only after the revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the Financial Commissioner. Consequently, these affidavits do not merit consideration.
11. In so far as the other points, put-forth, to impugn the partition proceedings, namely, the nature of land, change of possessions, the providing or non-providing of paths, these are pure questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated upon, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These points have been dealt with in detail by the Assistant Collector and the Collector and in our considered view do not call for any interference. The petitioner has failed to refer to any violation of law or any illegality in the impugned orders that may entitle him to any relief. Consequently, finding no merits in the present writ petition, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.