20.05.2025 SMT. BHAN HANI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF H OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN T AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH M) CWP-14599-2025 (O&M) 25 Date of decision : 20.05.2025 SMT. BHAN HANI AND OTHERS …Petitioners Versus STATE OF H OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HA E HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. Sunil Goswami, Advocate for the petitioners.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, A.A.G., .A.G., Haryana. HARSH BUN H BUNGER, J. [ORAL] Prayer in the present petition, fi 7 of tion, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constituti stitution of India, is for issuance of a w , e of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for setting a ting aside the order dated 01.07.201 e of 07.2016 (Annexure P-2); Mode of Partition date n dated 16.12.2016 (Annexure P-5); N 2017 5); Naksha `kha’ dated 24.03.2017 (Annexure P ure P-6); Sanad Takseem dated ated 29.07.2015 (Annexure P-7); 7); order dated dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure P-10 2023 10); order dated 12.10.2023 (Annexure P ure P-11) passed by the learned Coll 2024 d Collector; order dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure P ure P-13) and order dated 25.03.202 d by 3.2025 (Annexure P-15) passed by the learned Fi aryana. ned Financial Commissioner, Haryana 2. Briefly, respondent No.6-Satbi ation Satbir Singh filed an application (Annexure P ure P-1), seeking partition of joint at f joint land, comprised in khewat GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.30 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 6 Page 1 of 6 No.4/4, measuring 529 kanals-15 marlas (as per jamabandi for the year 2014-15), situated at village Budheda, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani. 2.1 In the afore-said partition application, all the respondents therein (including the present petitioners) were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.07.2016 (Annexure P-2). 2.2 It appears that in the partition proceedings, mode of partition came to be approved vide order dated 16.12.2016 (Annexure P-5) and thereafter, naksha `kha’ (Annexure P-6) was confirmed on 24.03.2017 and the partition proceedings culminated with the drawing of sanad takseem (Annexure P-7) on 29.05.2017. 2.3 It transpires that petitioner No.1 (Smt. Bhani) upon learning about the afore-said ex-parte proceedings, filed an application on 18.09.2017 before the learned Assistant Collector, seeking setting aside of the ex-parte order dated 01.07.2016. The said application was allowed by the learned Assistant Collector vide order dated 13.03.2018 (Annexure P-9) whereby, the ex-parte order dated 01.07.2016 was set aside and petitioner No.1 was called upon to submit her response to the partition case. 2.4 Apparently, respondent No.6-Satbir challenged the order dated 13.03.2018 (Annexure P-9) by filing an appeal before the learned Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil); which was allowed vide order dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure P-10) and the order dated 13.03.2018 (Annexure P-9) was set aside on the ground that the learned Assistant Collector, did not have the jurisdiction. 2.5 It appears that petitioner No.1-Smt. Bhani filed an appeal against the above order before the learned Collector, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2023 (Annexure P-11). GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.30 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 2 of 6 2.6 Thereafter, the petitioners are stated to have filed a revision petition before the learned Commissioner, Rohtak, which was partly allowed vide order dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure P-12) and the matter was remanded with a direction to conduct the partition afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 2.7 Feeling dissatisfied, respondent No.6-Satbir preferred two revision petitions (ROR No.240 of 2023-24 and ROR No.241 of 2023-24) before the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which came to be decided vide common order dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure P-13); whereby both the revision petitions were allowed and the order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner, was set aside; however, liberty was granted to the petitioners to file a revision against the sanad takseem. 2.8 Thereafter, the present petitioners preferred a revision petition (ROR No.77 of 2024-25), challenging the partition proceedings/sanad takseem, which has been disposed of vide order dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure P-15). 2.9 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court, for the relief/s, as noticed here-in-above. 3. 4. Heard. In the present case, the petitioners preferred a revision petition (ROR No.77 of 2024-25), challenging the partition proceedings/sanad takseem; in pursuance of order dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure P-13) passed in ROR Nos.240 and 241 of 2023-24. The said revision petitions came to be disposed of by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana vide impugned order dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure P-15) by observing as under :- “2. The Ld. Counsel for petitioners submits that separate shares of respondents no.1 and 9 have been carved GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.30 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 3 of 6 out in the present partition. He further alleges that respondent no.1 has got excess area. The contention of the Ld. Counsel is not true in view of the mutations no.884, 885, 903, subsequent to the 2014-15 Jamabandi. 3. Secondly, it is contended that the petitioners were not served notice of the partition proceedings. Without going into the correctness of the allegation at this belated stage, the Counsel was asked to explain any prejudice caused to the petitioners due to separating out the shares of the applicant- respondent no.1 and the respondent no.9. He says that there are other khewats in which the petitioners and the respondents are co-sharers and that the respondents no.1 and 9, who are real brothers, are in possession of excess land than their own shares in those other khewats. But, they cunningly managed to partition the present khewat. He submits that all the khewats must be partitioned together. Partition is done khewat-wise and in case the petitioners are aggrieved, they can apply for partition of the other khewats as per procedure laid down in the Land Revenue Act. 4. No prejudice has resulted to the petitioners due to the carving out of separate shares of applicant-respondent no.1 and respondent no.9. However, the Ld. Counsel for petitioners submits that no deduction has been made for common areas like passage and khals, which will be required in case of partition amongst the remaining co-sharers in the future. This contention is valid. The Counsel for the applicant-respondent no.1 on instruction is agreeable to a 1% deduction on account of likely wastage due to provision of common rasta and khals in future partition amongst the other co-sharers. Hence, the applicant-respondent no.1 shall be allotted an area of 55K-09M ± 1 marla and respondent no.9 shall be allotted an aread of 15K-18M ± 1 marla. The deduction of excess area shall be made from the eastern side of killa nos.86//10/2, 11 in case of applicant-respondent no.1 and from the western side of killa nos.89//18/2/1, 23/2 in case GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.30 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 4 of 6 of respondent no.9. The Naksha-kha and the sanad takseem shall be amended accordingly.
Decision
ROR disposed of accordingly.” 4.1 A perusal of the above-extracted findings returned by the learned Financial Commissioner, would show that the petitioners had failed to point out as to what prejudice has been caused to them with the manner in which the final partition has been carried out. Rather only one submission which found favour with the learned Financial Commissioner was that no deductions have been made from the share of respondent No.6- Satbir for common areas like passage, khals etc.; which may be required in case of partition in future amongst the remaining co-sharers, who have been kept in a joint khewat. On the said plea, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 had agreed to suffer a deduction/cut to the extent of 1% of his land holding for provisioning of land for common areas. Accordingly, a direction has been issued that respondent No.6-Satbir be allotted an area of 55 kanal-09 marlas ± 1 marla and respondent No.14 (Mahender) be allotted area of 15 kanal-18 marlas ± 1 marla. It has been further directed that the deduction of excess area shall be made from the eastern side of killa Nos.86//10/2, 11 as regards respondent No.6-Satbir and as regards respondent No.14-Mahender, the deduction has been ordered to be made from western side of Killa No.89//18/2/1, 23/2. Learned Financial Commissioner has further directed that Naksha `Kha’ and Sanad Takseem be amended accordingly. 5. I have also gone through the paper-book and considered the allocation of shares to respondent No.6-Satbir, respondent No.14-Mahender and also the land which stands jointly allocated to the remaining co-sharers, as depicted in Aks-shajra attached to Naksha `Kha’ (Annexure P-6). Indeed, the petitioners, who have been allotted joint land with the Page 5 of 6 GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.30 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh remaining co-sharers, have not suffered any prejudice by the manner in which the area has been allotted in the final partition. Furthermore, the respondents No.6 and 14 had already agreed for imposing deduction upon their area for provisioning of land for common areas, which may be required to be left in case of partition in future amongst the co-sharers, who have been jointly allocated the land in the instant partition proceedings. 6. Considering the above, I find no compelling reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure P-15) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana. Resultantly, the instant writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. All pending applications (if any) shall also stand closed. May 20, 2025 gurpreet (HARSH BUNGER) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.30 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 6 of 6