AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
CM-21470-CWP-2023
This is an application filed under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for impleading LRs of deceased/respondent No.7 Anuj Kumar, who is stated to have died on 23.08.2022.
Counsel appearing for the non-applicants/petitioners pleads no objection.
As per the averments made in the application, there is no other surviving legal heirs left by deceased/petitioner, except those mentioned in Para No.2 of the application. Application is supported by affidavit.
In view of above, the instant application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Legal heirs of deceased/respondent No.7 as detailed out in Para No.2 of the application, are ordered to be impleaded. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.
CM-11935-CWP-2024
This is an application filed under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for impleading LRs respondent No.7(iv)/Smt. Kela Devi) mother of deceased Anuj Kumar, who is stated to have expired on 26.01.2024.
Notice of the application.
Mr. Vijay Singh, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicants/petitioners and pleads no objection.
As per the averments made in the application, there is no other surviving legal heirs left by deceased/respondent No.7(iv), except those mentioned in Para No.2 of the application. Application is supported by affidavit.
In view of above, the instant application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Legal heirs of deceased/respondent No.7(iv) as detailed out in Para No.2 of the application, are ordered to be impleaded. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.
CWP-8112-2018
The parties are co-sharers. The dispute relates to partition of joint holding.
The petitioners by way of present writ petition seek writ in the nature of certiorari impugning order dated 08.03.2016 (Annexure P-18) passed by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Karnal.
The precise case of the petitioners is that Financial Commissioner vide order dated 20.10.2009 set aside naksha beh, dated 18.01.2006 and directed the same to be drawn afresh, observing as under:
“6.On hearing both the parties and going through the relevant record I find that the consideration of Civil Court decree at the time of preparation of Naksha “Be” is the bone of contention in this case. I feel that the Court decree which was arrived through a compromise and was arrived at prior to the application for partition in the present proceedings were made, should be kept in view while preparing Naksha “Be”. It is is not kept in view, it can lead to further complications with regard to present possession held by the parties and avoidable displacement of the parties. In my view, it shall be more relevant in the interest of all the contestants if the Civil Court decree is kept in view while preparing Naksha “Be”. It is therefore ordered that the A.C. 2nd Grade shall prepare Naksha “Be” keeping in view all the objections including the Civil Court decree of 2000, while preparing the Naksha “Be”. The order of Ld. Commissioner is modified to the extent. Both the parties are directed to appear before the AC 2nd Grade on 10.11.2009. It is observed that partition proceedings have taken long time and therefore they should be finalized within a period of reasonable time, preferably within 6 months.”
The order was challenged before this Court in CWP No.21343 of 2013 which was decided vide order dated 25.08.2015 maintaining the order passed by the Financial Commissioner.
Ld. Senior Counsel refers to order dated 08.03.2016 (Annexure P-18), to submit that despite there being remand order and subsequent directions to redraw naksha beh, the same which was drawn on 18.01.2006 has been accepted. The petitioners thereafter filed an application for review. The reference was sent by the Assistant Collector to the Collector which has been declined vide impugned order.
On being asked as to whether the petitioners have an alternate remedy, Ld. Senior Counsel refers to Section 15(3) of the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short, ‘the 1887 Act’) to submit that no appeal is maintainable against such order. However, he does not dispute that the impugned order is revisable under Section 16 of the 1887 Act.
In view thereof, the petitioners are relegated to alternate remedy of filing revision before the Commissioner.
Needless to observe here that if revision is filed, the issue of limitation shall be dealt with by the Commissioner in accordance with law. The time for which the writ remained pending before this Court shall be dealt as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The writ petition is disposed off accordingly.