RAJPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, challenge has been laid to order dated 22.04.2013 (Annexure P-7) whereby sanad taksim was issued as well as to the partition proceedings.

(2.) Respondents No.3 and 4 sought partition of the land in dispute vide application dated 16.08.2012 (Annexure P-3). During the pendency thereof, an application dated 07.02.2013 (Annexure P-4) was filed for consolidation of applications filed for partition of different khewats. The said application was allowed on the same day. Thereafter, mode of partition was approved on 28.02.2013. Naksha 'Bey' was received on the same day and was also passed without inviting objections from the co-sharers. Naksha zeem was called for 18.04.2013 and approved on the same day. Thereafter, sanad taksim was issued vide order dated 22.04.2013 (Annexure P-7). Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appearing in person. He could not appear either on 28.02.2013 or on 18.04.2013 and thus, he was deprived of his right of filing objections against naksha bey as well as naksha zeem. The consequential order of sanad taksim is thus illegal and deserves to be set aside.