MANI RAM Vs. A.C. IST GRADE, SIRSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is against the order dated 11.10.2000, passed by AC IG, Sirsa, and the order dated 26.6.2001 passed by ld. Collector, Sirsa.

(2.) THIS case relates to the partition of disputed land measuring 862 Kanals 7 Marlas, situated in village Barasari, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The order of partition of the said land was passed on 20.4.1992 by AC IG, Sirsa. An appeal was filed in the Court of ld. Collector, Sirsa, against the order, dated 11.10.2000, passed by AC IG, Sirsa, vide which the warrants of possession of the land were issued. After hearing both the parties, it was found that the order of partition of the disputed land was passed on 20.4.1992 which was upheld upto the level of ld. Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The appeal filed against the said partition in the Civil Court was rejected. As per the record, the partition of disputed land was executed at the spot. As per PLJ 2001(1) page 1 and PLJ 2000(1) page 34 no appeal/revision can be filed after the issue of 'Sanad Taksim' and an application can be filed in case there is any clerical mistake in the order but no such application is available on record. On the basis of said grounds, the appeal was rejected being baseless vide order dated 26.6.2001, passed by the ld. Collector, Sirsa. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) THE ld. counsel for the respondent contended neither the Mode of Partition nor the final order was ever challenged by the petitioners and a fresh grievance cannot be raised against the partition now. He further contended that Sanad Taksim may be prepared immediately or one year after, it has to be prepared in accordance with the original order. In the present case, the possession has been delivered to the respondents vide Rapat Rojnamcha No. 142 dated 21.9.2000 on that basis of his prayer dated 8.10.1998, made to AC IIG for execution. The ld. Civil Court of Sub Judge, Sirsa, vide order dated 10.2.2002 and ld. District Judge, vide decision dated 11.5.2001 have already dealt with the impugned order of AC IIG, Sirsa, vide which the possession was delivered. Therefore, he has prayed that petition be dismissed without being based on any sound basis.