CWP No.22645 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 22645 of 2011 Date of Decision: 07.12.2011 Raj Kishan .... Petitioner Versus The Collector, Patiala and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Advocate, for the petitioner. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Petitioner Raj Kumar has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing direction to the Collector, Patiala (respondent No.1 herein) to decide the applications (Annexures P-3 and P-4) submitted by the petitioner and other residents of the village for partition of the Bachat land. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid applications were filed by him along with others for getting their lands separated, in view of the direction given by this Court vide order dated 18.01.2000 in LPA No. 868 of 1992. During the pendency of those applications, Section 42-A was introduced in the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, which provides that the Bachat land cannot be partitioned. The validity of the said amendment, which was CWP No.22645 of 2011 2 challenged by way of CWP No. 15509 of 2007 titled as Mahatam Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others, has been upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 20.05.2011. In the above said writ petition, State of Punjab has filed an affidavit dated 04.08.2010 stating therein that all judgments, decrees, orders or decisions of any Court or any authority or any officer where partition of Jumla Malkan lands has been implemented / given effect to before the date of notification of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Amendment Ordinance 2007 i.e. 22.05.2007, the amendment would not be applicable. In view of the above, in our opinion, the Bachat land cannot be partitioned now. Merely because the application filed by the petitioner was pending at the time of introduction of the said provision, it does not empower the Collector to partition such land, after coming into force of the said provision. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the respondents are duty bound to decide the old applications cannot be accepted. After introduction of the aforesaid provision, partition of the Bachat land has been prohibited and management of such land absolutely vests in the Gram Panchayat. Thus, we do not find any merit in this petition. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 07, 2011 (PARAMJEET SINGH) ndj/vkd JUDGE