KULWINDER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dtd. 25/8/2022 (Annexure P-17) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh-respondent No.1 vide which the revision petition filed by the petitioners i.e., ROR no. 619 of 2018 in which the challenge was to the order dtd. 13/4/2010 (Annexure P-10); order dtd. 4/3/2010/10/3/2010 (Annexure P-9) and order dtd. 23/2/2010 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the sanad takseem, Naksha Irri and Naksha Arra had been prepared, was dismissed. A further prayer has been made in the writ petition for directing respondent no.2 to decide the partition application afresh by impleading the petitioners in the sanad takseem with respect to Khasra nos. 216 (8-5), 217(6-5) and 218 (6-5).

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that on 22/12/2005, respondents No.3 to 5, namely, Harjinder Singh, Hardit Singh and Bhagwant Singh, had filed an application under Sec. 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (for short 'the Act') for partition of the land at village Dharamkot, Tehsil and District Patiala. Total land measuring 320 bighas 17 biswas as per the jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 was the subject matter of the said partition application. The petitioners who were not the co-sharers on the date of the filing of the application were not parties in the said partition application dtd. 22/12/2005 (Annexure P-1 Pg 37 of the paperbook). Ajmer Singh-respondent no.6, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was respondent no. 9 in the said partition application. On 23/10/2009 (Annexure P-7), the mode of partition was prepared. Ultimately, the partition proceedings culminated with the issuance of sanad takseem/instrument of partition dtd. 13/4/2010 (Annexure P-10) and the rights of the co-sharers crystallized. As per the case set up by the petitioners, they had purchased land measuring 20 bighas 15 biswas from aforesaid Ajmer Singh-respondent No.6, vide registered sale deed dtd. 1/1/2018 (Annexure P-2). It is further the case of the petitioners, as is apparent from Para 4 of the Writ Petition, that the said Ajmer Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had filed a suit for declaration challenging the Order dtd. 10/3/2010 and Order dtd. 13/4/2010 (sanad takseem) and the said suit was dismissed. It has further been averred that, when respondent no. 4 and 5 were trying to get possession of the land then, the petitioners filed a Civil Suit bearing No.1629 of 2018 against Hardit Singh, Bhagwant Singh (who are respondents No.4 and 5 in the present petition) and Inder Moudgil, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein,from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land comprising Khewat No.1/1, Khatoni No.16, Khasra No.216 (8-5), 217 (6-5), 218 (6-5), total measuring 20 bigha 15 biswa, situated at village Dharmkot, Tehsil and District Patiala, as per jamabandi for the year 2011-2012. In the said civil suit, initially, vide order dtd. 23/5/2018, ex parte ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioners. The said suit had been dismissed, as has been averred in paragraph 4 of the present writ petition and as is apparent from the Order passed by the Financial Commissioner dtd. 25/8/2022. An appeal against the said order is stated to be pending. The judgement of the said civil suit however, has not been annexed with the present petition. Even the judgement passed in the suit filed by Ajmer Singh has not been annexed with the present petition. On 23/5/2018, as is apparent from Annexure P-11 (Page 115 of the paperbook), the possession of the land in accordance with the sanad takseem was given to Harjinder Singh, Hardit Singh and Bhagwant Singh (respondents No.3 to 5 herein). Having not succeeded in the civil Court, the petitioners had filed ROR No.619 of 2018 (P-12) challenging the sanad takseem dtd. 13/4/2010, Naksha Irri dtd. 10/3/2010 and Naksha Arra dtd. 23/2/2010. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, after considering the facts, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners alongwith another revision petition filed by Jasvir Kaur and Manjit Kaur, on the ground that there was a delay of more than seven years in filing of the revision petition and no plausible argument had been raised by the petitioners for getting the same condoned and it was further observed that the petitioners had purchased the land in the year 2018 i.e., after the issuance of sanad takseem and the onus was upon them to verify the details of the property before investing their money and purchasing the land. The argument of the private respondents to the effect that the warrant of possession was earlier issued on 13/5/2014 and on account of the civil suits, the same could not be executed was also noticed.

(3.) Sole argument raised by the Learned counsel for the petitioners is that, as per Sec. 122 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887, a person can apply for seeking possession of the land allotted to him in partition only within a period of three years from the date recorded in the instrument of partition and the possession could have been taken only within a period of three years from 30/4/2010 and since the same has not been done thus, the entire proceedings including the issuance of sanad takseem, should be set aside.