KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 7.12.2007 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and the order dated 3.11.2004 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the District Revenue Officer/Collector, Sonepat (respondent No. 3) whereby the Collector and the Commissioner respectively had declined to set aside the ex parte proceedings against the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the partition proceedings by which it is alleged that his brother in collusion with the revenue authorities has deprived the petitioner from the prime land to which he is entitled. It is submitted that partition proceedings were initiated by the respondents with the intention of grabbing the prime land which is situated on the main Kharkhoda-Sampla road. The petitioner has been given land which is far away from the road. It is submitted that the petitioner was never served in the partition proceedings.

(2.) AFTER giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that admittedly the partition proceedings are complete and 'Sanad Takseem' has been issued. According to the petitioner the possession of the land, however, is still with him. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings which it is stated were taken at his back. The District Revenue Officer-cum-Collector, Sonepat (respondent No. 3) in his order dated 3.11.2004 (Annexure-P.2) considered the contentions of the petitioner and observed that proper 'Munadi' was made in the village. It was also noticed that the petitioner had no where mentioned that which Killa number was wrongly granted and which Killa number should have been granted. It was also noticed that on the application for partition 'Naksha Zeem' was approved and instrument of partition was drawn and executed. Thereafter, the possession of the land stands transferred in accordance with the instrument of partition. It is also noticed that the possession has been changed which is evident from mutation No. 1817 dated 17.5.2004. As there was no infirmity in the orders that were passed, the District Revenue Officer-cum-Collector, Sonepat (respondent No. 3) was of the view that the same were liable to be affirmed. Accordingly, the application of the petitioner was dismissed.

(3.) IT may be noticed that the petitioner has not shown as to what prejudice has been caused to him in the partition proceedings and how his rights have been affected. In fact, even the District Revenue Officer-cum- Collector, Sonepat in his order dated 3.11.2004 (Annexure-P.2) had observed that the petitioner had not been able to show as to which Killa number has been wrongly given and which was liable to be given. Learned counsel submits that in the order of the Commissioner (Annexure-P.1) it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has 1/4 share in the entire land in the partition and he is in physical possession of Khasra Nos. 28/3 and 8/2 and had also installed a tube-well in the northern and eastern side of Khasra No.28/3. However, the Assistant Collector Grade-I has wrongly given Khasra No.34/4 to the petitioner which was in possession of Ram Phal. It is also mentioned that the petitioner was in possession of Khasra No. 34/1/1 in the eastern side measuring 3 Kanals 11 Marlas but he has been given Khasra No. 34/1/2 measuring 1 Kanal 19 Marlas. It may, however, be noticed that it is not shown by the petitioner as to whether the Khasra numbers which are stated to have been allotted to the petitioner are far away from the Kharkhoda-Sampla highway which is his primary grievance in the present petition. Besides, it may be noticed that Ram Phal from whom Khasra No. 34/4 has been taken and given to the petitioner is not impleaded as a respondent in the present petition although the other co- sharers were impleaded as parties before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. Therefore, the petition that has been filed is lacking in material particulars. It may also be noticed that 'Sanad Takseem' has been prepared and against an order preparing 'Sanad Takseem' an aggrieved person has no right, however, he is not without remedy and he can approach the Financial Commissioner by invoking his jurisdiction under Section 16(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 ('Act' - for short). A Division Bench of this Court in Resham Singh alias Dilbagh Singh v. Assistant Collector Ist Grade-cum- Tehsildar, Phillaur and others, (CWP No. 19985 of 2005), decided on 15.5.2007, has observed that the powers conferred under Section 16(1) of the Act would take within its ambit a quasi-judicial appraisal of the legality of the 'Sanad Takseem' and an aggrieved person may, in exceptional circumstances, invoke the Financial Commissioner's jurisdiction, under Section 16 (1) of the Act. It was held that Section 16(1) of the Act confers suo motu revisional powers upon the Financial Commissioner to call for and examine the legality of any proceeding, pending before or decided by a revenue officer. This Court in the case of Puran Singh alias Sampuran Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Development), Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2009(2) RCR(Civil) 712 (P&H) has observed that it is true that the Act does not provide for an appeal against 'Sanad Takseem' but an aggrieved person cannot be left without a forum to seek recourse. Finality attached to a 'Sanad Takseem' can always be impugned by invoking the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or suo motu powers conferred upon the Financial Commissioner. The dictum in Resham Singh alias Dilbagh Singh's case (supra) was followed and the case was remanded to the Financial Commissioner.