GURCHARAN SINGH @ GURBACHAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2012-7-551
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on July 23,2012

GURCHARAN SINGH @ GURBACHAN SINGH AND OTHERS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Sucha Singh was owner of the land measuring 384 Kanals 8 marlas situated in Village Killa Hakima, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur. On his death, the said land was inherited by his legal heirs vide mutation No.2804 in equal 96 Kanals 2 Marlas in the name of four co-sharers. As per the petitioners, the land being jointly held by four brothers, they entered into the family partition of this land on 13.12.1972, which was reduced into writing. All the brothers had signed this settlement. All the four brothers got 1/4 th share each, which was in their respective possession. It is alleged that Darbara Singh, predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos.5 and 6 sold the entire land measuring 96 kanals 2 marlas through different sale deeds. Despite this, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed an application for partition of total land measuring 384 kanals 8 marlas, claiming their share of 93 kanals 5 marlas. The petitioners contested the same.
(2.) The Assistant Collector Ist Grade approved Naksha Be without having regard to the settled position of law by passing a nonspeaking order. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed. They impugned the said order in revision before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, but the same was also rejected by passing a non-speaking order. The only ground taken by the Commissioner was that no family partition has been found to have taken place between the parties. He, thus, non-suited the petitioners by passing this cryptic order. The petitioners filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, who has also upheld the order passed by the lower authorities and accordingly, the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court.
(3.) The first submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the brothers are contesting this partition proceedings, efforts should be made to amicably resolve this dispute or differences. Efforts indeed were made and counsel for the parties had made a statement before this Court that settlement in this case was not possible.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.