← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/22048/2017dismissed

Gurpreet Kaur v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, Chandigarh & Others

2017-09-27Mr. Justice R.P. Nagrath2 pages

Vinod Kumar 2017.10.07 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.22048 of 2017 [ 1 ] *****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.22048 of 2017 Date of decision:27.09.2017 Gurpreet Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others

...Respondents

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Hitesh Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved against the orders of the Collector dated 21.07.2014, Divisional Commissioner dated 10.03.2015 and the Financial Commissioner dated 29.03.2017, by which the matter regarding partition of land measuring 17 bighas 13 biswas, comprising of khewat/khatauni no.210/352, khasra no.3122/723 min (4-19), 3127/726 (7-12), 3129 (4-15), 3133/730 (0-7), situated at village Chhapa, Tehsil and District Barnala, has been remanded back to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade with a direction to invite fresh objections from the parties regarding Naksha "Ara" and decide the same thereafter after hearing the parties. The only argument raised by counsel for the petitioner is that she has got another piece of land in khasra no.724 and the share of the petitioner, during partition, could have been given in khasra no.726/727 so that she would have the land at one place.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that this aspect of the matter has been thoroughly considered by all the revenue authorities and it has been

CWP No.22048 of 2017 [ 2 ] ***** found that khasra no.724 was not under partition because it is exclusively owned by the petitioner, as alleged, therefore it cannot be considered to be a factor in the partition proceedings.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed, being denuded of any merit, though without any order as to costs. September 27, 2017 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No