RAMESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Susceptibility to avarice is one of the greatest shortcomings in human beings. Even holy people and saints fall prey to it. Eradication of this evil appears to be impossible. The law can only deal with it by discouraging acts which are the outcome of greed.

(2.) Three persons of village Dulina, Tehsil and District Jhajjar filed an application for partition of joint land in all measuring 4250 kanals 19 marlas. The same was rejected vide order dtd. 10/2/2014 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar on the ground of non-mentioning of names of owners of land forming part of Drain No.8 in the relevant jamabandi. This order was challenged before the Collector by the persons who had filed the partition application, who allowed the appeal filed by them vide order dtd. 12/12/2017 with a direction that the land through which Drain No.8 was flowing be excluded from the partition. Thereafter, the partition was concluded and sanad dtd. 5/11/2019 was issued. The same was challenged by the petitioner and two other persons namely Rajesh and Rakesh sons of Nar Singh by way of an appeal filed before the Collector, Jhajjar. This appeal was dismissed as being not maintainable. Thus, a revision was filed before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and status quo was ordered vide order dtd. 8/2/2021. Order of status quo was continued vide order dtd. 8/3/2021 resulting in challenge to the said orders by respondent No.5 by way of a revision petition filed under Sec. 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as applicable to Haryana. The Financial Commissioner stayed the proceedings pending before the Commissioner and finally allowed the revision petition vide order dtd. 1/6/2022. The revision pending before the Commissioner was dismissed. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) It may also be noticed that before the Collector, aforementioned Rajesh and Rakesh tendered affidavits stating that they do not wish to continue with their appeal and the petitioner submitted an application that he has no objection to sale/purchase of land. This application is in fact an unattested affidavit of the petitioner and is on record as Annexure R-2 with the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.5. After dismissal of the appeal, respondent No.5 purchased a total of about 80 acres of land from different co-sharers through different sale deeds for setting up a logistic park.