Sant Ram @ Sant Lal Vs. Financial Commissioner Haryana and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1160346
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnAug-06-2014
AppellantSant Ram @ Sant Lal
RespondentFinancial Commissioner Haryana and ors.
Excerpt:
cwp no.2681 of 2012 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cwp no.2681 of 2012 date of decision : 06.08.2014 sant ram @ sant lal ....petitioner v/s financial commissioner haryana & ors....respondents before : hon'ble mr.justice rajan gupta present: mr.r.a.sheoran, advocate for the petitioner. mr.saurabh mohunta, dag haryana. mr.v.s.punia, advocate for respondents no.6 to 9. rajan gupta j. petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders annexures p2 to p5 dated 07.01.2004, 28.11.2005, 18.12.2009 & 30.08.2011 respectively. learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the orders.according to him, same are unsustainable. the criteria followed is wholly arbitrary. mode of partition ought to be according to respective possession of parties. thus, impugned orders deserve to be quashed. plea has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel appearing for respondents no.6 to 9. according to him, partition was strictly in accordance with provision of mode of partition. according to him, both the parties are on equal footing. i have heard learned counsel for the parties. brief factual background of the case is that respondents filed an application before assistant collector, iind grade, charkhi ajay kumar201408.08 13:52 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.2681 of 2012 2 dadri for partition of land measuring 87 kanals 4 marlas comprised in khewat no.82/77 khatoni no.95 situated in village sahuwas. thereafter, petitioner raised his grievance before assistance collector iind grade. on 07.01.2004, naksha “kh”. was finalized by assistant collector, iind grade. aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before sub divisional officer (p) exercising the powers of collector but remained unsuccessful. revision was later preferred before the commissioner which met the same fate. petitioner has not been able to show any infirmity with the orders passed by the authorities. there is, thus, no scope for interference in writ jurisdiction. dismissed. august 06, 2014 (rajan gupta) ajay judge ajay kumar201408.08 13:52 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

CWP No.2681 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2681 of 2012 Date of decision : 06.08.2014 Sant Ram @ Sant Lal ....Petitioner V/s Financial Commissioner Haryana & ors....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Saurabh Mohunta, DAG Haryana.

Mr.V.S.Punia, Advocate for respondents No.6 to 9.

RAJAN GUPTA J.

Petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders Annexures P2 to P5 dated 07.01.2004, 28.11.2005, 18.12.2009 & 30.08.2011 respectively.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the ordeRs.According to him, same are unsustainable.

The criteria followed is wholly arbitrary.

Mode of partition ought to be according to respective possession of parties.

Thus, impugned orders deserve to be quashed.

Plea has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel appearing for respondents No.6 to 9.

According to him, partition was strictly in accordance with provision of mode of partition.

According to him, both the parties are on equal footing.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Brief factual background of the case is that respondents filed an application before Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Charkhi AJAY KUMAR201408.08 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.2681 of 2012 2 Dadri for partition of land measuring 87 kanals 4 marlas comprised in khewat No.82/77 khatoni No.95 situated in village Sahuwas.

Thereafter, petitioner raised his grievance before Assistance Collector IInd Grade.

On 07.01.2004, Naksha “Kh”.

was finalized by Assistant Collector, IInd Grade.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before Sub Divisional Officer (P) exercising the powers of Collector but remained unsuccessful.

Revision was later preferred before the Commissioner which met the same fate.

Petitioner has not been able to show any infirmity with the orders passed by the authorities.

There is, thus, no scope for interference in writ jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

August 06, 2014 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE AJAY KUMAR201408.08 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document