Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.93 seconds)
Documents citing Sh. Ranbir Singh vs Financial Commissioner And Secretary ... on 20 February, 1998

Inderdeep Singh And Others vs The Financial Commissioner ... on 3 May, 2013

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that although the passage has been provided in red colour, connecting his three parcels of land but the path ought to have been provided along the watercourse so as to avoid the wastage of the land. It would have been more convenient to both the parties. He also relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ranbir Singh Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others 2005(2) HRR 187. He finally prays for dismissing the writ petition.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - R S Malik - Full Document

Cahnderpal vs Assistant Collector 1St Grade Abohar & ... on 19 September, 2018

Prior to the amendment the Division Bench in Ranbir Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others 2005(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 385 had held that the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 does not provide remedy against final order of partition which is concluded by drawing up of the "Sanad Takseem". However, the same could be impugned by filing a writ petition.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Baljinder Singh And Another vs Santokh Singh And Others on 6 March, 2024

Learned counsel for the caveators-respondents has opposed the maintainability of this petition as the earlier writ petition i.e. CWP- 2898-2024 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 22.02.2024 wherein the petitioners had withdrawn the petition with liberty to the petitioners to file the revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the judgment titled as Ranbir Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others passed in CWP-7419-2005 decided on 23.05.2005, the writ petition is maintainable after issuance of the sanad taksim.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R Bhardwaj - Full Document

Jaswant Singh vs Financial Commissioner on 17 February, 2009

A perusal of the impugned judgement passed by the learned LPA No.86 of 2009 -2- Single Judge shows that only Harbhajan Singh, Paramjit Singh and Ravinder Singh had agreed to the partition whereas, other respondents did not agree to the partition and hence the finding of the Collector that all the parties have unanimously agreed to the partition is wholly erroneous. As all the parties did not agree to the mode of partition, therefore, the case has rightly been remanded to the Assistant Collector IInd Grade to redetermine the mode of partition and proceed with the partition proceedings. The second argument of the counsel for the petitioner that once the Sanad Taksim has been issued then the partition proceedings cannot be re-opened also has no force as in Ranbir Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others it has been held as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nakli Ram And Another vs Commissioner on 22 January, 2010

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants at length and perused the record including the site plan sanctioning partition Annexure P.2. A perusal thereof shows that by and large, the land allotted to the appellants is contiguous. Learned counsel for the appellants, inter- LPA No.822 of 2009 (O&M) 3 alia, relied upon judgment of this Court in Ranbir Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2005(3) PLR 519, to submit that final order of partition could be challenged by way of writ petition. There is no dispute about this proposition. In the judgment relied upon itself, it was observed in para 9 that while examining orders in partition proceedings, this Court does not appraise correctness as an appellate or revisional forum and confines itself to examine legal infirmities. Examination of finding of fact is beyond the purview of this Court's jurisdiction. Contention raised on behalf of the appellants relates to appreciation of facts and question whether land of equal value has been given to the appellants in accordance with the mode of partition.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A K Goel - Full Document

Dalip Singh vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals-Ii) on 24 September, 2012

Counsel for the appellant submits that in view of Section 158 (2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), partition proceedings, cannot be challenged, before a civil court. The mere fact that one of the parties has filed a civil suit, challenging validity of partition proceedings, could not be a ground to dismiss the writ petition. It is further submitted that as the Act does not provide an appeal or a revision against a Sanad Takseem, (the final document of partition) the appellant had no option but to file a writ petition as held by this Court in Raja Ram alias Rajender Vs. Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector, Hissar, 2001(1) PLJ (Civil) 1; Ranbir Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 385 and Amar Khan and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 741.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next