FATEH RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dtd. 16/11/2018 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana, order dtd. 19/7/2016 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, and the order dtd. 25/7/2014 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hodal, District Palwal, whereby the objections filed by the petitioners were dismissed and the sanad taksim of the same date was issued, which order has been upheld upto the Financial Commissioner.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners although initially did not file any objection when naksha 'A' was prepared but at the stage of issuance of naksha 'B', objections were filed which were not accepted by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. He contends that three objections were filed by the petitioners. The first objection was that the share of the petitioners has been wrongly determined in the partition application and in naksha 'B'. The second objection was with regard to the fact that there was a title dispute between the parties before the Civil Court because of which the revenue authorities should have refrained from proceeding with the matter till a decision in the Civil Court or should have determined the share/title of the parties and then proceeded to pass an order and the third objection, which was raised, was that there were some other khewats also, which had to be clubbed up together with the partition of the khewats, which were sought to be made in the application and the objections which were raised were not rightly considered and decided. He contends that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hodal, proceeded to reject all objections which order has been upheld upto the Financial Commissioner. His contention is that the objections should have been taken into consideration and decided by the authorities in a proper manner keeping in view the legal position and as per Sec. 117 of the Punjab Revenue Act, 1887.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance, have gone through the impugned orders as well as the documents placed on record.