Sushma Rustagi And ANR v. Financial Commissioner And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Decided on : 03.09.2025 SUSHMA RUSTAGI AND ANR . .Appellants

Versus

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

. . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. J. P . Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) CM-5021-LPA-2025 The prayer in the present applications filed by applicantappellants is for condonation of delay of 01 day in filing the present appeal i.e. LPA No. 2022 of 2025.

Keeping in view the averments enumerated in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Consequently, the delay of 01 day in filing the present appeal i.e. LPA No. 2022 of 2025 is condoned.

-2LPA-2022-2025 In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge, by which, CWP No. 1899 of 2025 filed by the petitioner/appellant challenging the order dated 06.12.2014 (Annexure P-5), orders dated 21.04.2016/26.05.2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Rewari and also the order dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner of Haryana qua the partition proceedings has been dismissed. 2.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though, it is a conceded fact that the appellants were proceeded ex-parte during the partition proceedings but, the partition of the land in question has not been done in a judicial manner and the land holding more value has been given to the respondent which is causing prejudice to the appellant. 3.

Learned counsel for the appellants further argues that though, the appellants initially joined in the partition proceedings but later on, they abstained from joining in the said proceedings on the ground that there was a dispute pending with regard to the possession of certain land which was to be partitioned, hence, the revenue authorities as well as the learned Single Judge, failed to appreciate the said fact while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the partition proceedings which was proceeded exparte so as to re-open the same for adjudication by giving an opportunity to the appellants to present their objections qua the partition proceedings which would be in consonance with principles of Natural Justice. 4.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone

-3through the case file with his able assistance. 5.

It is a conceded fact that when the partition proceedings were initiated, the same was in the knowledge of the appellants and initially the appellants had joined the partition proceeding but thereafter, they abandoned the same and were consequently proceeded exparte. 6.

Once, the appellants chose to not to contest qua their right in the partition proceedings, the orders passed by the revenue authority which was passed as per the due process envisaged under Law, the same cannot be reopened only on the asking of the appellants on any ground which was permissible with the appellants to raise before the authorities when the partition proceedings were pending.

7.

Further, the argument which was raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that certain dispute qua the possession of the land was pending before the revenue authorities and therefore, the appellants chose not to participate in the partition proceedings. The same is not a valid ground to abstain oneself from joining in the proceedings. 8.

Even if, there was a dispute pending qua the possession of certain land, when the proposal was raised, the same should have been highlighted before the authorities concerned and the same should have been brought to the notice of the authorities concerned as well so as to give the authorities concerned the scope to decide upon the same while adjudicating upon the partition proceedings so as to partition the land between the cosharers. 9.

Further, the judgments and orders passed by the authorities can
 



    

  
   





    
   

 


-4-    

  

    

     
  
   
  
  

            
  
     
 


     
   !

  
 
 

   
  

   

  
     11.

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. " Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE ( VIKAS SURI ) JUDGE 03.09.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No