AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
[1] By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners seek issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.1, i.e. the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby the order dated 24.01.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Collector was upheld.
[2] The dispute arises out of the application filed by respondent Nos.5 & 6, seeking partition of land measuring 381 kanals 01 marla.
[3] It is not in dispute that the parties are co-sharers. Mode of partition (Annexure P-1) was finalized on 22.04.2009. Naksha Bay was proposed. The petitioners filed objections to Naksha Bay. The copy of the objections has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. The objection raised by the petitioners to Naksha Bay reads as under:-
“1.The land shown to have been partitioned in Naksha K h is wrong. Because land is unlevelled (at some places at much height and at some places at a very low level). The water of rectangle No.1 3 2 and 1 3 3 is khara (not sweet), which has been wrongly shown in our share. Whereas co-sharers are entitled to equal share in good and bad land. All the co-sharers be given land in rectangle No.1 3 2 & 1 3 3 having khara pani and unlevelled and Naksha be prepared again. ”
[4] The objections were rejected by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Tohana, vide order dated 31.08.2009 (Annexure P-3). The after spot inspection. Naksha Bay was sanctioned. Aggrieved by the dismissal of objections, the petitioners filed an appeal. Collector vide order dated 10.03.2010 (Annexure P-4) dismissed the appeal. Still aggrieved, the petitioners preferred the revision petition before the Commissioner. The revision petition stands dismissed vide order dated 24.01.2011 (Annexure P-5) by the Commissioner, Hisar Division. Still aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, by way of ROR-356 of 2010-11. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dismissed the revision petition vide impugned order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure P-6).
[5] Counsel for the petitioners refers to the mode of partition. He submits that as per the terms of the mode of partition, the land was partitioned keeping in view the quality of land. The objection raised by the petitioners has not been adjudicated by the authorities.
[6] Per contra, counsel for the respondents submits that a pure finding of fact has been recorded by the Assistant Controller, IInd Grade, after visiting the spot. Concurrent finding of facts has been recorded by the authorities below, which need no interference in the present writ petition.
[7] I have heard counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case.
[8] Apart from two acres of land, the entire land is Nehri as per the revenue record. The issue with respect to ‘saline’ water and the land being unleveled was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, by visiting the spot.
[9] Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out that when the majority of land has been mentioned to be Nehri as per the revenue record, how the petitioners can claim that the land awarded to them in the partition is being irrigated by ‘saline’ water.
[10] Keeping in view the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the present writ petition. The same is ordered to be dismissed.
[11] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed off.