FONDANT PROPBUILD PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall decide both the aforementioned cases as the same orders are under challenge in both cases.

(2.) Respondent No.5 filed two separate applications for partition of land comprised in khewat No.32 and that comprised in khewat No.33. The land comprised in khewat No.32 measures 48 kanals and that comprised in khewat No.33 measures 08 kanals. On 5/11/2012, statement of the authorized representative of the petitioner was recorded, whereby, he stated that both khewats belong to the same parties and thus, both the partition applications may be consolidated. Proposed mode of partition was received on the same date, i.e. 5/11/2012 and the petitioner submitted objections to the same. It was reiterated that the two separate partition applications be consolidated. Vide order dtd. 13/12/2012, the objections to the proposed mode of partition were rejected and the mode of partition was affirmed. While rejecting the objections, the Assistant Collector, First Grade held that owners of the two khewats being different, the applications cannot be consolidated. Thereafter, Naksha Bay was summoned for 18/12/2012. The petitioner filed objections on 10/1/2013 thereto. The objection was that the land given to it did not adjoin other land owned by it. The objections were rejected vide order dtd. 4/2/2013. Petitioner's appeal against the rejection of objections to Naksha Bay was dismissed on 8/4/2013. The appellate order was challenged by way of a revision before the Commissioner, but the same was also dismissed vide order dtd. 16/9/2013. Meanwhile, sanad takseem was issued on 17/4/2013. The sanad as well as order dtd. 4/2/2013 of the Assistant Collector, First Grade rejecting objections to Naksha Bay were challenged by way of second revision before the Financial Commissioner. The appellate andrevisional orders passed, meanwhile, were also subjected to challenge. However, the petitioner failed and the revision petition was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dtd. 19/2/2014. Review filed was also rejected vide order dtd. 23/7/2014 and thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The land comprised in khewat No.33 was owned by three entities, namely, the petitioner, respondent No.5 and M/s Fori Propbuild Private Limited, whereas, the land comprised in khewat No.32 was owned only by the petitioner and respondent No.5. It is not disputed that M/s Fori Propbuild Private Limited as well as the petitioner are 100% subsidiary companies of Emaar-MGF Limited.