RAM GOPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 8.4.2009 (Annexure P2) stated to have been passed by respondent No.1 i.e. the Financial Commissioner, (Revenue). In fact, the said order has been passed by the Collector Hisar.

(2.) The petitioner Ram Gopal filed an appeal against an order dated 31.10.2008 inter alia stating that the non-official respondents had filed an application for partition of land measuring 339 kanals 16 marlas in the area of Adampur. In the said application, the petitioner was not impleaded as a party and the Court below had completed the proceedings of partition in a totally illegal manner. Besides, it had ignored that the petitioner was also a co-sharer. The respondents before the Collector Hisar on appearance stated that the petitioner had filed an application before the Court below for impleading him as a party and the said application was dismissed on 31.10.2008. In fact Naksha KA was prepared on 24.9.2008 after acceptance by all the parties. Thereafter, Naksha KHA was prepared on 17.10.2008. It was followed by Naksha G which was completed. Ultimately, the mode of partition was prepared on 17.10.2008 and the proceedings were completed. The learned Collector, Hisar in terms of his impugned order dated 8.4.2009 (Annexure P2) observed that in terms of order dated 24.9.2008 Naksha KHA was prepared against which there were no objections. After finalization of Naksha KHA, Naksha G was prepared and the Sanad Takseem was issued on 17.10.2008. The petitioner had filed an application on 31.10.2008 after partition proceedings had been completed. It was observed that the appeal of the petitioner was without any force because the learned lower Court had passed a correct order on 31.10.2008. The said order was passed after partition proceedings had been completed. A reference was made to Section 121 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 ("Act" - for short) which provides that when a partition is completed, the Revenue Officer shall cause an instrument of partition to be prepared and the date on which the partition is to take effect to be recorded therein. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not heard at the time of partition proceedings and therefore, the partition is liable to be undertaken afresh after impleading the petitioner as a party.