Civil Writ Petition No. 10205 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 10205 of 2009 Date of Order: 15.02.2010 Mukhtiar Singh ....Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Rahul Chatwal,Advocate for the petitioner RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner challenges orders passed by revenue authorities, that have attained finality with the sanction of the sanad taksim (the final order of partition) and the consequent mutation reflecting the change of ownership. Counsel for the petitioner submits that partition proceedings are a nullity, for partial partition, for inclusion of houses, and as possession has been disturbed. It is further submitted that as the petitioner was not granted an adequate opportunity to put forth his claim the proceedings for partition are null and void. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and express my inability to hold that revenue authorities have committed any error as would require interference. Partition proceedings commenced on 11.12.1987 i.e. more than two decades ago. The petitioner by an ingenuous exploitation of the fora of appeals and revisions, provided Civil Writ Petition No. 10205 of 2009 -2- under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, has succeeded in delaying partition proceedings. The argument that houses have been included in partition proceedings is belied by paragraph 6 of the mode of partition, which clearly provides that possession of the tubewell and houses would be maintained. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any house that has been partitioned or tubewell that has been allotted contrary to its ownership. It would be necessary to mention here that the mode of partition was sanctioned on 05.01.1989. The petitioner, however, did not file any objection to the mode of partition but instead filed an appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed. The Commissioner, Faridkot set aside the partition proceedings and remitted the matter but the Financial Commissioner accepted the revision filed by respondents no.5 and 6 and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner by holding as under:- “He has drawn my attention to the order of the Collector where the Collector in Para-7 of his order has held that the partition proceedings had been completed and such type of objection could not be raised at that stage. A perusal of order of the Assistant Collector Grade-I also indicates that after considering all the objections raised by the parties, he had rejected the objections of the petitioner regarding non maintainability of partition proceedings on the ground that the same were required to be raised right in the beginning of the partition proceedings and he had ordered for Civil Writ Petition No. 10205 of 2009 -3- finalisation of Naksha Jeem. All this categorically indicates that the Commissioner was not justified in giving fresh lease of life to the petitioners on one pretext or the other, which had rightly been rejected at the level of the Assistant Collector Grade-I as well as the Collector. Under these circumstances, I see every justification for setting aside the order of the Commissioner and maintaining the orders passed by the Assistant Collector Grade-I and the Collector. Ordered accordingly. The parties have been directed to appear the Assistant Collector Grade-I, Faridkot for finalisation of partition proceedings on 06.10.2008.” The other submissions with respect to partial partition and exclusion of other co-sharers cannot be raised at this belated stage. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the present petition is dismissed. February 15, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE