Civil Revision No. 1331 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1331 of 2009 Date of decision. 08.07.2009 1.Anil Kumar son of Shri Satpal, adopted son of Shri Amar Singh. 2.Ashish minor son of Shri Satpal, adopted of Shri Amar Singh, through his mother and natural guardian Smt. Bimla Devi, both residents of village Bass Khurd Bijan, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar. ....... Petitioners Versus 1. Anil Kumar, 2. Sunil Kumar sons of Shri Vijay Singh son of Shodha Chand, resident of village Bass Khurd Bijan, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar. ...... Respondents 3.Sunil Kumar son of late Shri Satpal, adopted son of Shri Amar Singh, resident of village Bass Khurd Bijan, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar. 4.Bharat Singh, 5. Rajender, 6. Ram Kumar minor son of Ram Mehar son of Hamir Singh alias Amir Singh through his father and natural guardian Ram Mehta, 6. Kartak Singh, 7. Mukahtyar Singh sons of Diwan Singh, 8. Mahabir, 9. Joginder, 10. Om Parkash sons of Dariya Singh son of Bhai Singh, 11. Smt. Birmati, 12. Smt. Prem, 13. Smt. Bimla daughters of Bhag Chand son of Abhe Ram, 14. Rameshwar alias Ram Mehar son of Mehar Singh son of Abje Ram, 15. Satpal, 16. Ved Pal, 17. Balwan, 18. Balvir sons of Bhagwana son of Jugti, 19. Civil Revision No. 1331 of 2009 --2-- Smt. Krishan widow of Satbir, 20. Ram Niwas, 21. Ajmer sons of Satbir, 22. Smt. Sudesh daughter of Satbir, 23. Dhoop Singh son of Harphool, 24. Dharambir, 25. Ajmer sons of, 26. Saroj, 27 Guddi, 28. Sheela, 29. Anita daughter of Shanti daughter of Bhagwana, all residents of village Bass Khurd Bijan, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar. .... Proforma respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr.Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the revision-petitioners. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 07.11.2008, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division ), Hansi, and the order dated 28.02.2008, rendered by the Court of District Judge, Hisar, in appeal, vide which, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiffs, was dismissed, has been instituted by the revision-petitioners. Civil Revision No. 1331 of 2009 --3-- 2. The relevant facts for the decision of this revision-petition, are that the land measuring 422 kanals 2 marlas, situated in village Bass Akbarpur, Sub tehsil Bass, as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint, is joint between the parties and the same has not yet been legally partitioned. It was stated that one Satpal, who was one of the co-owners, in the disputed land, father of the plaintiffs, as well as defendant no.3 executed a release deed of land measuring 40 kanals 5 marlas, out of the disputed land, in favour of the plaintiffs as well as defendant no.3, by way of registered release deed dated 04.07.2000 and mutation no. 2339 was also sanctioned on 28.07.2000 in their favour. It was further stated that defendant nos. 1 and 2 being clever persons, moved an application for partition of the disputed land, and by misleading the Court, got the order of partition. It was further stated that no opportunity of being heard was provided to defendant ( respondent no.3 ). It was further stated that the Revenue Officer without deciding the question of title, partitioned the disputed land. It was further stated that the property, in Civil Revision No. 1331 of 2009 --4-- dispute, was illegally partitioned. It was further stated that the order regarding the partition of the property being un-executable, the defendants could not take possession, in pursuance thereof. Accordingly, a suit for permanent injunction was filed. 3. Alongwith the suit, an application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for interim injunction was filed. 4. Defendant-respondent no.1, put in appearance, and filed reply to the application. It was stated that the disputed property was partitioned, in accordance with the provisions of law by the Assistant Collector(Ist) Grade and his order was upheld up-to the Court of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. It was further stated that the father of the plaintiffs never disclosed the execution of any alleged release deed, in the partition proceedings,though he had been pursuing the same through his Counsel. It was further stated that in the jamabandi for the year 1991-92, the share of the plaintiffs was wrongly shown as 882/8443, whereas, their actual share was 805/8443 Civil Revision No. 1331 of 2009 --5-- and this clerical mistake was rectified by the Revenue Authorities, during the partition proceedings. It was further stated that there is no illegality in the order of partition. It was further stated that Sanad Takseem was correctly prepared, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the record, the trial Court dismissed the application. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellants, which was also dismissed by the Appellate Court, vide its order dated 28.02.2009. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed, by the plaintiffs-revision petitioners. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, and have gone through the documents, on record carefully. 9. The Counsel for the revision- petitioners, submitted that the partition of the disputed land had not been effected by following the proper procedure, as required under law and, as Civil Revision No. 1331 of 2009 --6-- such, the entire partition proceedings were null and void. He further submitted that no opportunity of being heard was provided to defendant no.3 during the course of partition proceedings. He further submitted that the Courts below were, thus, wrong in coming to the conclusion that, in pursuance of the Sanad Takseem, the defendants were competent to take possession of the land in dispute. He further submitted that the Courts below illegally dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiffs ( now revision petitioners ). 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Undoubtedly, the partition of the disputed land has already been effected, by the Assistant Collector (Ist) Grade. The predecessor interest of the appellants, who was a party to the partition proceedings, took every possible objection during the course thereof and after Civil Revision No. 1331 of 2009 --7-- deciding those objections, the Assistant Collector (Ist) Grade, accepted the application for partition. It is evident from the order dated 28.02.2009, passed by the District Judge, Hisar that passage from two sides to the property, which fell to the lot of the appellants, in the partition proceedings, was provided to them. At the initial stage, it could not held that the order of partition of the disputed land, was, in any way, illegal. Even the appeal and revision, filed by the revision-petitioners, before the Revenue Authorities, stood dismissed, up to the highest Revenue Court i.e. the Court of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The Courts below, in my considered opinion, were right in coming to the conclusion, that in pursuance of the partition, which has already been effected, the defendants were competent to take possession of the land, which fell to their lot, and they could also not be restrained from alienating or transferring the same. The Courts below were, thus, right in dismissing the application. The orders rendered by the Courts below, are neither illegal nor suffer from any material irregularity nor perversity and, Civil Revision No. 1331 of 2009 --8-- therefore, the same do not warrant any interference, by this Court. 11 For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. ( Sham Sunder ) Judge July 08, 2009 dinesh