Ishwar Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others

Krishna Murari, CJ

Delay of 62 days in filing the appeal stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application and the same stands disposed of.

This intra-Court appeal under clause-X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants-petitioners challenging the order dated 17.07.2018 passed by Financial Commissioner whereby revision petition preferred by them against the order dated 11.05.2017 passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Grade issuing sanad takseem after the partition of the joint holding was dismissed.

It is undisputed that the proceedings before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade were drawn ex parte against the appellants-petitioners, inasmuch as, despite service of notice they chose not to appear. After the partition proceedings were finalized and sanad takseem was issued, the appellants-petitioners filed revision petition before the Financial Commissioner alleging that service of notice was manipulated and they were actually not served as there was no notice and they had no knowledge of the proceedings.

The Financial Commissioner, after considering the entire material on record, returned a finding of fact that the case set up by the appellants-petitioners that respondent No.1 therein manipulated the service of summons is factually incorrect and that the service was complete and it were the appellants-petitioners who chose not to appear despite service of summons particularly when all of them were real brothers and residing in the same village.

The learned single Judge, after having gone through the findings recorded by the Financial Commissioner in respect of service of summons, not only affirmed the same but also proceeded to examine the claim of the appellants-petitioners on merits which was to the effect that they had received six marlas less land and that there was no watercourse for irrigation of their land. On examination of material brought on record, it was found that the source of water is available to the petitioners as the watercourse reaches their land. The learned single Judge has further held that all the co -sharers of the land have been granted equal share in the land and, thus, it cannot be said that it is a case where the appellants-petitioners have received less land. It is also recorded that a path, which has been carved out, has been equally shared by all the co -sharers.

Concededly, the sanad takseem has been given effect to and pursuant thereto all the co-sharers have been put into possession of the shares allotted to them and it is only thereafter the appellants-petitioners proceeded to challenge the same. From a perusal of the record, we do not find any case, as set up by the appellants-petitioners with respect to having received less land, is made out in their favour. The only ground on which challenge was made to sanad takseem was that the said proceedings were ex parte and no notice was served upon them which fact has been found to be factually incorrect by all the authorities.

In view of the above facts and discussion, the findings recorded by the authorities below and affirmed by the learned single Judge are findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence and material on record. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same in the Letters Patent Appeal, which is devoid of any merits and, accordingly, stands dismissed.