Judgment:
LPA No.317 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.317 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision:30.6.2014 Ram Chander ….Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH Present: Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
****** HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against an order passed by learned Single Bench of this Court on 02.12.2013 wherein the challenge to the finalization of partition proceedings by way of Naksha Be remained unsuccessful.
The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mahindergarh passed an order approving the mode of partition of the joint land on 05.01.2003 that is that possession and quality be maintained.
In pursuance of such order, in Naksha Be proceedings, the appellant did not file any objections to the mode of partition proposing 9 Kanals and 9 Marlas to him and remaining land to Rattan Singh.
The mode of partition so proposed was affirmed.
The challenge to such partition remained unsuccessful before the authorities under the Act as well as before the learned Single Bench of this Court.
\ The only argument raised by the appellant in the present appeal is that the land was to be partitioned keeping in view, the possession as well as quality of the land, whereas the learned Single Bench has found that quality refers to the fertility of the land and not its location.
The appellant Diwakar Gulati 2014.07.01 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.317 of 2014 2 has not been given any share of the land abutting road, which land is more valuable that the land not so abutting the road.
Therefore, the Naksha Be sanctioned runs counter to the mode of partition approved.
We do not find any merit in the argument raised.
In fact, the learned Financial Commissioner has found that the road which the petitioner claims is not a road as such, as it is only a village Rasta.
Therefore, while keeping possession in view, the appellant has been allotted land measuring 9 Kanals 9 Marlas, the land which was in his possession as against the land which has been allotted to respondent-Rattan Singh measuring 4 Kanals 14 Marlas.
The land in possession of the appellant was not abutting the village passage, therefore, he was not allotted any land abutting the village Rasta.
The land adjoining village Rasta cannot be said to have any higher potential than the other land situated in the village.
The land in possession of the appellant was not abutting any part of the village rasta, therefore, the appellant cannot claim the share of the land abutting rasta.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the authorities under the Act and as affirmed by the learned Single Judge.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE JUNE30 2014 (FATEH DEEP SINGH) ‘D.
Gulati’ JUDGE Diwakar Gulati 2014.07.01 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document