Manjit Singh And ANR v. Financial Commissioner To Govt Of Haryana And ORS

LPA-469-2016 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1.

LPA-469-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 13, 2018 Manjit Singh and another .....Appellants

Versus

Financial Commissioner to Government of Haryana and others ......Respondents 2.

LPA-651-2016 Smt.Sawaran Kaur ......Appellant

Versus

Financial Commissioner to Government of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA

Present:

Mr.HPS Bhinder, Advocate for the appellants.

Ms.Shubhra Singh, Addl.AG, Haryana.

Mr.Peeush Gagneja, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 49. Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.50. ........

SURYA KANT, J.(ORAL) This order shall dispose of the above captioned Letters Patent Appeals as the point in issue involved in both the appeals is common in nature.

[2] For the sake of convenience the facts are being extracted form LPA-469-2016.

[3] The appellants approached this Court challenging the order dated 10.12.2015 passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana in exercise of MEENU 2018.09.19 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

LPA-469-2016 (O&M) -2his revision jurisdiction whereby Sanad Taksim, i.e. issued in partition proceedings of the joint holding, was issued. The appellant as well as private respondents are subsequent vendees of the land which has been statedly partitioned amongst the co-owners in the year 2007. Learned Single Judge dismissed the appellants' writ petition in the light of the fact that the partition proceedings were initiated by private respondents in the year 2006 and stood finalised on 27.08.2007. The appellants have purchased the land much thereafter on 05.05.2009, 19.11.2008, 18.11.2009 and 16.12.2010, namely, when partition orders were pending implementation. Learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the appellants have stepped into the shoes of their vendors and they will get the land only to the extent their vendors' share in the joint khata.

[4] In this view of the matter, no case to interfere with the ongoing partition proceedings is made out except to direct the Revenue Authorities to take the partition proceedings to their logical conclusion in accordance with law.

[5] Dismissed.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE September 13, 2018 ( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2018.09.19 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh