Petitioners are estopped from raising objections to sanad as they didn’t take interest in partition proceedings & stopped appearing before Assistant Collector

Read Order: Hardyal Singh and another v. Financial Commissioner Punjab and others 

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, December 17,2021:In a case pertaining to the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has opined that the litigation was initiated with the intention of extracting a pound of flesh.

Under challenge in this writ petition was the sanad takseem issued by the order dated August 14,2013 as well as order dated February 7,2018 passed by the Financial Commissioner dismissing the revision against the said sanad.

The factual background of this case is that the petitioners are sons of Avtar Singh and co-sharer in a certain Khewat measuring 84 Bigha 14 Biswa situated in the revenue estate of village Jolliya, Sub Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur. The third respondent filed an application dated June 19,2012 for partition of the joint khewat. Mode of partition was approved and the partition was finalized resulting in issuance of sanad. As mentioned, challenge thereto had failed.

Additional relevant facts were that Avtar Singh (father of the petitioners) had also challenged the sanad by way of revision petition which was dismissed on the ground that he had no locus to challenge the sanad as he had already sold his share in the joint khewat. Uncle of the petitioners namely Baljinder Singh son of Kishan Singh had also challenged the sanad but his revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn as there was a settlement between the parties. The revision petition of the petitioners was filed in the year 2016.

The Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal observed that the petitioners stopped appearing before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade by choice. They did not take interest in the partition proceedings and did not object to the clubbing of the partition applications nor were any objections raised against the nakshas. Thus, they were estopped from raising objections to the sanad. 

The Court stated that their conduct left no doubt that they had waived their rights to challenge the alleged illegalities committed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade.

According to the Bench, the facts also showed that the litigation was malafide. The father did not need to challenge the sanad after he had sold his share. Yet, he did so and the intent could only have been to delay transfer of possession. The uncle challenged the sanad only to withdraw the same on reaching a settlement. Four months later the petitioners filed a revision petition raising objections which were never raised during the course of partition proceedings.It requires no great erudition to conclude that the litigation was initiated with the intention of extracting a pound of flesh, added the Court.

Opining that the petitioners had disentitled themselves from consideration of the case on merits, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.