Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1336 (PNJ)

Laxami Narain v. Parbhati Lal

2005-12-30

H.C.DISODIA

body2005
ORDER H.C. Disodia, F.C. - This revision petition has been filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 29.11.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon vide which he has upheld the order dated 5.5.2000 passed by the Collector Sub-Division, Narnaul remanding the case to the Assistant Collector, Nangal Chaudhry with the directions to decide the partition of land in question after hearing both the sides. 2. The arguments in this case were heard on 14.11.2005 and the 1judgment was reserved. The case is being decided through this final order. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner Laxarni Narain filed an application before the Assistant Collector, Nangal Chaudhry for partition of land measuring 19 Kanal 17 mar1a situated at Village Burwal, Tehsil Narnaul. Distt. Mahendragarh. During proceedings, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the respondent and further proceedings with regard to approval of ‘Naksha Bey’ and ‘Naksha Zeem’ etc. were completed without. associating the respondent. Against the final order dated 28.5.1999 passed by the Asstt. Collector, Nangal Chaudhary as also the order dated 2.4.1999 vide which ex-parte proceedings were initiated, the respondent filed appeal before the Collector, Sub Division, Narnaul who, vide his order dated 5.5.2000, remanded the case to the Assistant Collector Nangal Chaudhry for decidif1g it afresh after hearing both the parties. Aggrieved with this order of the Collector, petitioner Laxmi Narain filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon who vide his order dated 29.11.2002 rejected the same. Against the order of the Divisional Commissioner and order dated 5.5.2000 of the Collector, Sub Division, Narnaul the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition before this court. 4. The Id. counsel for the petitioner argued that ex-parte proceedings were correctly initiated against the respondent as neither he himself nor his counsel appeared before the Assistant Collector on 2.4.1999. He further contended that the revenue Court is not competent to adjudicate the matter and competency to do so lies with the civil court as this stage when partition proceedings have already been completed and ‘Sanad Takseem’ has also been issued. The ld. counsel referred to the judgements reported in PLJ 1993 Vol. II Page 496, PLJ 1997 Vol. I page 546 and 2001 PLJ Vol. I Punjab & Haryana High Court in support of his contention. The Id. The ld. counsel referred to the judgements reported in PLJ 1993 Vol. II Page 496, PLJ 1997 Vol. I page 546 and 2001 PLJ Vol. I Punjab & Haryana High Court in support of his contention. The Id. counsel further submitted that both the Collector as well as the Divisional Commissioner have failed to appreciate the above position of law and therefore, have grossly erred in passing the impugned orders. He requested that both the impugned orders passed by them may be set aside and the correct and just order passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Nangal Chaudhry may be upheld. 5. In rebuttal, the Id. counsel for the respondent argued that due to unavoidable circumstances the proceedings in the court on 2.4.1999 could not be attended either by the respondent or his counsel but however, on the very next date of hearing Le. 12.4.1999 the respondent moved an application before the Assistant Collector requesting for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings initiated against him. However, the Assistant Collector failed to pass any order on this application and further proceedings viz. hearing of objections, passing of ‘Naksha Bay’, passing of ‘Naksha Zeem’ and issuing of ‘Sanad Takseem’ were held at the back of the respondent and thus, the entire action on the part of Assistant Collector denied due opportunity of defence to the Tespondent. The Id. counsel further contended that both the Collector as well as the Divisional Commissioner have restored justice to the respondent by remanding the case and providing him opportunity of defence. Moreover, contended the Id. counsel further, the Assistant Collector during proceedings committed grave irregularities especially while accepting the ‘Naksha Bey’ without passing an order of mode of partition. The Id. counsel requested that the order passed by the Id. Collector and Divisional Commissioner may be upheld. 6. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and have also carefully gone through the record. A careful perusal of the record depicts that grave irregularities and patent mistakes have been committed during the proceedings at the level of Assistant Collector. It is apparently evident that on launching of ex-parte proceedings against the respondent on 2.4.1999, he had moved an application for setting aside the same on the very next date of hearing i.e. 12.4.1999, which was ordered to be placed on record, but no decision on the same was taken. It is apparently evident that on launching of ex-parte proceedings against the respondent on 2.4.1999, he had moved an application for setting aside the same on the very next date of hearing i.e. 12.4.1999, which was ordered to be placed on record, but no decision on the same was taken. Without taking a decision on this application, all further proceedingsat the level of Assistant Collector do not seem to be justified. Again on 23.4.1999, during proceedings the Assistant Collector has ordered that ‘Naksha Bey’ so prepared has been seen by both the parties which is factually wrong. Further on 26.4.1999, the Assistant Collector has approve a ‘Naksha Bey’ but no order with-regard to mode of partition has been passed and no document as such is available on record. All this leads to believe that the Assistant Collector committed patent mistakes and grave irregularities while finalising the partition proceedings. 7. Interestingly, in the instant case Assistant Collector appears to be in an undue haste-in finalising the partition proceedings. A perusal of the record reveals that on 2.4.1999 he orders for initiating ‘ex-parte’ proceedings against the respondent; on 12..4.1999 he orders for calling the ‘Naksha Bey’; on 23.4.1999 he observes that the’ ‘Naksha Bey’; has been received which has been seen by both the parties and adjourns the case for 26.4.1999 for hearing objections; on 26.4.1999 he accepts the ‘Naksha Bey’; on 27.5.1999 he accepts the ‘Naksha Zeem’; on 28.5,1999 Sanad Takseem is issued and on the same day the file is consigned to record room: Such a hurry on the part of Assistant Collector to finalise the partition proceedings appears to be abnormal and strange. Moreover, his observation on 26.4.1999 that the respondent is absent and he wants to prolong the proceedings, also appears strange in view of the fact that ex-parte proceedings had already been launched against the respondent on 2.4.1999. 8. In view of the above, I have come to the conclusion that grave irregularities have been committed at the level of Assistant Collector while finalising the partition proceedings. 8. In view of the above, I have come to the conclusion that grave irregularities have been committed at the level of Assistant Collector while finalising the partition proceedings. The respondent or his counsel have failed to appear only on one date of hearing on which ex-parte proceedings were launched against him but however, the Assistant Collector has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent moved an application for revocation of ex-parte proceedings but no decision on his application was taken and he continued further proceedings at the back of the respondent which is highly unjustified and against the principles of natural justice. Since glaring irregularities in completion of the partition proceedings at the level of Assistant Collector are apparent, the legal authorities on the subject cited by the Id. counsel for the petitioner have no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, “I find no perversity or infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Collector as well as the Divisional Commissioner vide which the case has been remanded to the Assistant Collector for a fresh decision. Apart from this, in the impugned orders the parties have been given valuable rights to prove their respective merits/claims before the appropriate authority in a time bound manner i.e. within a period of six months and therefore, on this front also, the impugned orders seem to be justified. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of any merits. To be communicated. Petition dismissed. ————————