AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Singh, J.—Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while referring to Annexure P/6, has vehemently argued that against the Naksha Be, objections were preferred, however, without considering the same, partition was finalized.
Perusal of the record, particularly, order dated 24.9.2009 (Annexure P/4) would reveal that initially the Naksha Be dated 21.7.2009 was prepared and submitted. The Petitioner filed objections (Annexure P/6) to the original Naksha Be dated 21.7.2009. Order (Annexure P/4) would also reveal that after considering the original Naksha Be, and objections there of, amended Naksha Be was prepared and finalized.
On being asked as to whether Petitioner ever raised any objection against the amended Naksha Be, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has fairly stated that No. objection was ever raised against the amended Naksha Be.
In view of the fact that against the original Naksha Be dated 21.7.2009, objections were raised by the Petitioner and having considered the same, amended Naksha Be was prepared to which the Petitioner did not raise any objection, I do not find any merit in the present petition.
Dismissed in limine.