Bachna vs Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, Chandigarh and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—Prayer in the application is to implead the L.Rs. of respondent No. 5, who are stated to be already on record and are

represented. Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 8 has drawn my attention to the order passed by this court on 2.2.2011 where all the pleas raised

by the petitioner were considered and the following order was passed:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the first count, contends that the partition proceedings suffer from inherent defect in so much as 1 kanal 1

marla land has been left out from the partition proceedings. On the second count, it has been pleaded that no rasta has been provided to the land

of the petitioner comprised in Khasra No. 34/11/1 of Revenue Estate Village Palasi Nangal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar.

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.

Perusal of order Annexure R-2 makes it evident that both the parties entered into an agreement in regard to the partition. In regard to Khasra no.

155(1-0), it has been said that the said land be excluded from partition, it falling in abadi area. The first argument addressed by learned counsel for

the petitioner is in regard to Khasra No. 155(1-01) and, therefore, the same has to be rejected.

In regard to the second contention, my attention has been drawn towards Annexure R-3 wherein, the said issue has been dealt with. It transpires

that Khasra No. 34/11/1 and Khasra No. 34/11/2, both, fall to the share of the petitioner. Rasta has been provided to Khasra No. 34/11/1 which

is right next to Khasra No. 34/11/2. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there was no requirement to provide rasta to each

and every Khasra number/min Khasra number.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure P-4 to say that the partition had been finalized while providing rasta from

middle of the land of the petitioner because on the northern portion of the land shown in green, abadi of the petitioner is in existence. Learned

counsel contends that by way of partition, the abadi is disturbed. The rasta provided in brown has been removed. Rasta provided in black has

been provided as would be evident from page no. 26-A. The said site plan, however, do not depict picture from the actual Sajra.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file a document duly certified by Revenue Authorities reflecting the actual facts

on ground.

Adjourned to 28.02.2011, however, subject to ` 5,000/-as costs to be deposited with High Court Lawyers'' Welfare Fund. The needful be done

within 2 weeks.

Counsel today submits that subsequently notice was issued when he was able to establish that the way the partition has been obtained, the abadi

is disturbed. Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, has placed on record Naksha-Bey to show that it is only a different shaded to show the

partition and not that it is a rasta. The plea that abadi was disturbed, thus, is just raised and is not proved on record. That being the position, no

case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out, especially so when Sanad Takseem in this case stands issued in the year 2002.

Dismissed.