CWP No.17178 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17178 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.09.2011 Onkar Nath ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court assailing order dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.4 as well as order dated 16.8.2011 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.3. Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that petitioner moved an application seeking partition of the land in question on 19.4.2005. Respondent No.4, Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, prepared the mode of partition on 10.3.2006. As per the mode of partition (Annexure P-2) two karams of rasta was to be provided and different tucks were to be prepared by considering the possession of the parties. Petitioner challenged the mode of partition before the Collector, however, appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on 15.3.2007. Petitioner thereafter filed a revision before CWP No.17178 of 2011 -2- Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. During the pendency of the revision, parties arrived at compromise and compromise deed (Annexure P-3) was executed. Learned Commissioner has dismissed the revision as withdrawn in view of the compromise between the parties (Annexure P-3). Learned Assistant Collector vide order dated 27.2.2009 has accepted the compromise and has further accepted the map of partition prepared by field staff as accepted by the counsel appearing for the parties in view of the compromise and directed to prepare sanad taksim. Thereafter petitioner sold land measuring 3 kanals 2 marlas in favour of Anju Bakshi, Shashi Bakshi and Neelam Bakshi. Thereafter an application was moved before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, on behalf of the vendees of the petitioner saying since their husbands are already party as respondents No.60 to 62 herein, therefore, land purchased by them be added in the chunk of respondents No.60 to 62 herein. Learned Assistant Collector in the impugned order dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure P-9) has held that if chunk of the land of purchasers from the petitioner is prepared jointly with the chunk of the land of respondents No.60 to 62 herein, husbands of the purchasers, it will not affect the mode of partition. Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 26.4.2011 petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector, Mukerian, which was dismissed by learned Collector vide order dated 16.8.2011 saying appeal is not maintainable. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully perused the record. Mr. Ranjit Saini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, CWP No.17178 of 2011 -3- has vehemently argued that once partition proceedings were finalized by way of compromise vide order dated 27.2.2009, therefore, respondent No.4 was not within its jurisdiction to provide joint chunk to the purchasers with their husbands, therefore, order dated 26.4.2011 would amount to review of earlier order dated 27.2.2009. Undisputedly, pursuant to order dated 27.2.2009 no final sanad taksim was ever issued. Undisputedly, petitioner has sold land measuring 3 kanals 2 marlas to respondents No.71 to 73. Undisputedly, respondents No.71 to 73 are wives of respondents No.60 to 62 herein. If petitioner has sold some of the land in favour of the wives of respondents No.60 to 62 then petitioner should have no objection in making joint chunk of land of respondents No.60 to 62 with their wives respondents No.71 to 73. In the opinion of this Court, before issuing final sanad taksim pursuant to order dated 27.2.2009, respondent No.4 was well within its jurisdiction to provide joint chunk to the husbands and wives. It will not cause any harm to the petitioner. Therefore, I do no find any merit in the petition. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge September 14, 2011 R.S.