SHAKUNTLA (SINCE DECEASED) Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 20.10.2014, Annexure P -5, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana; order dated 13.01.2010, Annexure P -3, passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak; order dated 25.02.2008, Annexure P -2, passed by the Collector, Rohtak and the order dated 13.08.2007, Annexure P -1 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade -cum -Tehsildar, Rohtak, vide which the objections of the petitioners against 'Naksha Kha' have been dismissed.

(2.) IT would be relevant to mention few facts. Private respondents No.2 to 4 had filed a petition for partition of land bearing khewat No.335/330 Min, Khatoni No.370 -371, kitte 2, area 11 kanals 4 marlas and khewat No.455/442 Min Khatoni No.502 kitte 16 area 98 kanal 1 marla of village Bakheta Tehsil and District Rohtak. The said petition was objected by the petitioners on the grounds that the suit land cannot be partitioned as the applicants before the revenue authorities (respondents herein, hereinafter referred to as private respondents) were not owners of the land. Once Smt. Rajwanti @ Rajwati, petitioner No.2 is a co -sharer in the joint khewat and she never executed any gift deed or sale deed in favour of the private respondents and the decree dated 23.08.1984 passed in civil suit No.163 of 1984 was illegal, nonest and inoperative as the same was based on fraud and the matter is pending adjudication in the Civil Court.

(3.) REVENUE Authorities prepared 'Naksha Kha' and the petitioners are stated to have filed the objections in respect of aforementioned 'Nakha Kha' by raising objections that the land which is stated to have been good and bad has not been considered. Even the possession of the land measuring 1 kanal 19 marla is stated to have been with the petitioners and this fact has also not been taken into consideration and therefore, it would create difficult situation in cultivating the land at two places. The aforementioned objection was contested by the private respondents on the ground that intention was to prolong the case and create hindrance in cultivation of the land.