CHHATAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 02.01.2009 (Annexure P/9) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, order dated 08.11.2007 (Annexure. P/8) passed by respondent No. 2 - Commissioner, Rohtak Division (Camp at Sonepat) and order dated 12.04.2006 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No. 4 - Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kharkhoda, District Sonepat arising out of the partition proceedings. This is an unfortunate case where two brothers are fighting for partition of land.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner - Chhatar Singh filed an application for partition of land measuring 60 kanals 7 marlas situated in Village Firojpur Bangar, Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonepat. The mode of partition was approved in this case on 07.02.2001 (Annexure P/1). As per the mode of partition, the land was to be partitioned khewatwise and it was also one of the clauses of the mode of partition that the area where the tubwell is installed, will be given to the person who has installed the tubewell. It is also one of the clauses of the mode of partition that land is to be partitioned qualitywise and the khurra can be disturbed to that extent. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade called Naksha 'Kha' and approved the same vide order dated 12.04.2006 (Annexure P/4), while rejecting objections raised by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, specifically stating therein that the land situated on the Delhi-Kharkhoda road is more valuable and has commercial potential. The said land should be allotted according to share of the parties, whereas the petitioner has only been allotted 1 kanal 18 marlas out of Khasra No. 37//13, respondent No. 5 - Om Parkash has been allotted khasra No. 37//13/1 (1-3), 14 (6-4). The partition is not an equitable partition and is violative of Clauses 1 and 3 of the mode of partition. The Collector vide order dated 14.07.2006 (Annexure P/6) accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kharkhoda, with a direction to call Nakhsa 'Kha' again. Respondent No. 5 - Om Parkash preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide order dated 08.11.2007 (Annexure P/8), set aside the order of the Collector. Aggrieved against that order, the petitioner filed revision before the Financial Commissioner, that has been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 02.01.2009 (Annexure P/9).-Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) On notice of the present writ petition, respondent No. 5 - Om Parkash filed written statement stating therein that possession cannot be disturbed. He is entitled to the land which is in his possession.