LPA No.86 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: LPA No.86 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: February 17, 2009 JASWANT SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, COOPERATION ...RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: MR. RAJIV JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated January 12, 2009 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar dated 29.3.2001 (Annexure P-5) and the order dated 22.12.2003 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Co-operation, Punjab have been upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sanad Taksim had been issued on 28.8.2000, and hence the order of partition could not have been challenged by the respondents at this belated stage. Learned counsel further submits that mode of partition had been agreed to by the respondents and once that was accepted by the Assistant Collector, therefore, partition proceedings cannot be restarted. A perusal of the impugned judgement passed by the learned LPA No.86 of 2009 -2- Single Judge shows that only Harbhajan Singh, Paramjit Singh and Ravinder Singh had agreed to the partition whereas, other respondents did not agree to the partition and hence the finding of the Collector that all the parties have unanimously agreed to the partition is wholly erroneous. As all the parties did not agree to the mode of partition, therefore, the case has rightly been remanded to the Assistant Collector IInd Grade to redetermine the mode of partition and proceed with the partition proceedings. The second argument of the counsel for the petitioner that once the Sanad Taksim has been issued then the partition proceedings cannot be re-opened also has no force as in Ranbir Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others it has been held as under:- “...that as the Sanad Takseem had attained finality, the Commissioner rightly declined to interfere in the matter. However, as the Punjab Land Revenue Act does not provide any appeal or revision, against a final order of partition, the petitioner is well within his rights to impugn the proceedings for partition by filing a writ petition.” In view of the above, we find no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. The Assistant Collector shall conclude the partition proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE February 17, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Gulati JUDGE