The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH NASEEB SINGH NASEEB SINGH CWP-14244-2024 (O&M) 2024 (O&M) Date of decision :12.05.2025 Date of decision :12.05.2025 …Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :
Legal Reasoning
, Advocate Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Upasana Dhawan, A.A.G., Haryana. Ms. Upasana Dhawan, A.A.G., Haryana. HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL] HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL] Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 issuance of a writ in the nature of of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of issuance of a writ in the nature of of the Constitution of India, is for certiorari for for setting aside the order dated 07.03.2017 (Annexure P 3) and g aside the order dated 07.03.2017 (Annexure P-3) and 6) passed by the learned Assistant Collector Ist 27.01.2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Assistant Collector Ist 6) passed by the learned Assistant Collector Ist 27.01.2020 (Annexure P Grade, Shahabad. Grade, Shahabad. rder A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order A further prayer has been made for setting aside the o 11) passed by the learned Financial dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure P-11) passed by the learned Financial 11) passed by the learned Financial dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure P Commissioner, Haryana. Commissioner, Haryana. 2. Briefly, respondents No.4 and 5 herein, filed an application Briefly, respondents No.4 and 5 herein, filed an application Briefly, respondents No.4 and 5 herein, filed an application seeking partition of joint land measuring 16 kanal seeking partition of joint land measuring , comprised in 16 kanal-0 marla, comprised in khewat No.44 (as per the Jamabandi for the year 2015 khewat No.44 16) situated at Jamabandi for the year 2015-16) situated at village Mohri, Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. In the said partition village Mohri, Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. In the said partition village Mohri, Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. In the said partition village Mohri, Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. In the said partition 4 Page 1 of 4 GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.18 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh application, the present petitioner-Naseeb Singh was impleaded as respondent No.1. 2.1 A perusal of the zimini orders (Annexure P-4) would show that in the partition application, notices were issued to the parties vide order dated 18.11.2016 for 20.12.2016. On 20.12.2016, respondent No.6 in the partition application namely, Surjit Bagga appeared through her counsel; however, the service upon remaining respondents was not effected and service upon them was ordered to be effected by way of proclamation (munadi). It appears that the munadi was carried out and the report in that regard was placed on the record, accordingly, vide order dated 07.03.2017 (Annexure P-3), the respondents, other than respondent No.6, were proceeded against ex-parte, which included petitioner-Naseeb Singh. 2.2 Apparently, the partition proceedings were concluded with the drawing of sanad takseem dated 27.01.2020 (Annexure P-6). 2.3 It appears that the petitioner challenged the partition proceedings/orders along with sanad takseem by filing a revision petition (ROR No.644 of 2022-23) before the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana which came to be disposed of vide impugned order dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure P-11); whereby, certain changes were made in the sanad takseem. 2.4 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court, for the relief, as noticed here- in-above. 3. 4. Heard. In the present case, the land under partition is only 16 kanals, which is comprised in two khasra Nos.772 and 780. In the final partition, only the share of respondent Nos.4 and 5 namely, Darshani Devi and GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.18 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 2 of 4 Manmeet Singh has been separated by allocating 02 marlas – 03 sarsahi area to them by carving out khasra No.772/1 whereas, the remaining area i.e. khasra No.772/3 (7-17) and 780 (8-0) i.e. total area measuring 15 kanal-17 marla has been kept joint between the remaining co-sharers. 4.1 On revision filed by the petitioner, learned Financial Commissioner has suggested certain changes vide order dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure P-11), the relevant extract of which reads as under :- “2. Parties were asked to compromise, but the Petitioner’s Counsel is adamant. There is no evidence that the south-west corner of khasra no.772 is more valuable than the south-east corner of the adjacent khasra no.780. The other co- sharers will be compensated enough if 50% of the waste caused due to the 2 karam X 3 karam rasta is shared in equal ratio by the respondents no.1, 2, 8, 9, 10 with the other co- sharers. Hence, the plot allotted to the respondents no.1, 2, 8, 9, 10 (in sub-khewat no.1 of the impugned Sanad Takseem) shall be reduced from the present 7 karam X 3 karam of area 21 sarsai to 6 karam X 3 karam of area 18 sarsai. The share of the respondents no.1, 2, 8, 9, 10 in the rasta (in sub-khewat no.3 of the impugned Sanad Takseem) shall be one-half of the total, that is 3 sarsai, and the remaining half share shall be divided amongst the other co-sharers proportionately. Impugned Sanad Takseem to be modified accordingly. Respondents no.1, 2, 8, 9, 10 will be put in possession of their separate area within 2 months from today.” 4.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner. That apart, I am of the considered view that the respondents No.4 and 5 have a very minimal area of about 02 marlas in the joint khewat, which has been separated out and the present petition appears to have been filed with some oblique motive. Further, it has also not been GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.18 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh shown as to what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner if 02 marla Page 3 of 4 area out of joint khewat of 16 kanals, has been separated and given to respondents No.4 and 5 as per their entitlement. 5. Considering the totality of circumstances, I find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 6. All pending applications (if any) shall also stand closed. May 12, 2025 gurpreet (HARSH BUNGER) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.18 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 4 of 4