Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balvir Singh vs Financial Commissioner (Revenue) ... on 23 May, 2017
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
CWP No.23464 of 2016 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.23464 of 2016
Date of Decision.23.05.2017
Balvir Singh s/o Jangir Singh ........Petitioner
Vs
Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others
........Respondents
Present: Mr. G. L. Bajaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)
The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned orders (Annexures P-4 to P-7) rendered by the authorities particularly the order dated 30.12.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed after the order of remand, whereby the Assistant Collector 1st Grade (Tehsildar) Bathinda has not followed the order of the Collector in preparing the naksha bay, much less, nature and quality of the property. Even the naksha bay reflects the khasra numbers in favour of the deceased father and the petitioner will have difficulty in getting the correction done in khatoni paimash (Annexure P-10). All these points were required to be pondered upon.
The petitioner raised an objection with regard to naksha bay but the same had been rejected by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and the naksha bay was sanctioned. The authorities had to follow the procedure which is a sine qua non that in partition every co-owner has to be proportionately given a piece of land irrespective of its quality, in essence, the quality and potentiality of land has to be equally distributed. Having not taken care of the aforementioned fact, the orders impugned are not sustainable.
1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 07-06-2017 11:24:41 ::: CWP No.23464 of 2016 -2- I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book. While hearing the arguments, this Court raised following two queries:-
(i) To enable Mr. Bajaj to lend support to the arguments with regard to superior quality of land. In this regard, reference has be made to site plan at page 63 in vernacular to show that the area i.e. khasra No.389/1, 388/1, 387/2 are situated too away from the road, however, while going through the naksha (Anneuxre P-12), a tuck of the petitioner is having a frontage of road. No doubt, in the khatoni paimash, owner has been reflected as Jangir Singh, father of the deceased, it can be rectified as and when application is moved. It appears to be a typographical error as it is not in consonance with the revenue record, as Jangir Singh, father of the petitioner, has died.
(ii) As regards the nature of the land, reference has been made to the jamabandi Annexure P-9 with regard to the same but it does not show whether the land is cultivable, non-cultivable, chahi, gair mumkin or banjar. In the absence of the same, the aforementioned argument of Mr. Bajaj with regard to quality of land is wholly misplaced and off the record.
In my view, the mode of partition (Annexure P-1) reflects that the partition shall be effected after disturbing possession of the parties and tucks shall be framed as under. Relevant portion of the same reads as under:-
"2. Partition will be effected after disturbing the possession of the parties. Vendee will b remained under vendors.
2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 07-06-2017 11:24:42 ::: CWP No.23464 of 2016 -3-
3. Taks will be framed as under:-
(a) Tak of the applicant will be separated.
(b) Tak of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 will be separated.
(c) Tak for the remaining respondents will be kept separate.
4. No attention will be provided for the allotment of less than 3 marla."
No objection has been filed to the mode of partition. It was only to the naksha bay, which is in accordance with mode of partition and therefore, there could not be a possible objection to the naksha bay which is in consonance with the memorandum of partition. It appears to be a dilatory tactic on behalf of the petitioner in the adjudication of the partition proceedings, much less, drawing instrument of partition.
With the observations that the petitioner is at liberty to seek correction in the khatoni paimash, owing to the instrument of partition, the writ petition is dismissed by upholding the rest of the orders, as the same do not fall within the realm of judicial review, much less, no ground for interference is made out.
(AMIT RAWAL)
JUDGE
May 23, 2017
Pankaj*
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 07-06-2017 11:24:42 :::