Hardeva and Another vs State of Haryana and Others

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 24.4.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 3976 of 2012) filed by the appellants, challenging the orders dated 15.1.2010 (Annexure P-6) and 20.10.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed by the revenue authorities, partitioning the land between the co-sharers, has been dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and going through the impugned order as well as the aforesaid orders passed by the revenue authorities, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Learned counsel for the appellants only argued that the partition has been effected without caring the possession of the appellants on the land, and the land, which was in their possession, was given to the other co-sharers.

Undisputedly, in this case, clause 2 of the mode of partition, copy of which was annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-10, provides that the partition be made keeping in view the quality of land and the possession at the spot. In this case, the land abutting the road, which was in possession of the appellants, has been equally divided among the cosharers. Merely because the appellants were in possession of the said land, they cannot be given the entire land on the road, because as per the mode of partition, the partition was to be effected while taking into account the quality of the land also. Thus, we do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants should have been given the land abutting the road on the basis of their possession. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly upheld the orders passed by the revenue authorities. No merit. Dismissed.