IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.11277 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 8, 2011 GIAN SINGH & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS MEWA SINGH & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Subhash Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. GS Attariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This Civil Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 7.8.2007 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 24.3.2009 (Annexure P-5). It transpires that respondent No.1 and the petitioners are in partition proceedings. The mode of partition (Annexure P-2) was prepared. At the end of the mode of partition, the following has been recorded :- “The abovesaid mode of partition has been prepared in the presence of the parties and their respective counsel. In this regard, parties and their counsels expressed their consent. Civil Writ Petition No.11277 of 2009 2 Hence, the abovesaid mode of partition is hereby passed and by sending a copy of the same to Circle Kanungo, the Naksha be called for. File be put up on 14.9.05.” Respondent No.1 went up in appeal, indicating that the statement under signatures was not taken by the authorities and, therefore, let the matter be remanded to re-adjudicate in regard to mode of partition. What is relevant to be noticed is that the issue is in regard to para-9 of the mode of partition, which reads as under:- “9. The Gair mumkin tubewell/motor which is in Khasra no.11/5/2 (0-5), the same shall be kept joint/common.” In regard to the tubewell, it has been stated on behalf of respondent No.1 that the tubewell and motor connection are in the name of respondent No.1 herein. The motor has never been used by the petitioners herein. On this issue, the record was produced. In this view of the matter, vide order (Annexure P-3), the Collector has set aside order (Annexure P-2) and the case has been remanded. The petitioners filed an appeal under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, before the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala. The appeal has been accepted in view of the fact that it was a consent order and, therefore, no appeal could have been filed. Respondent No.1 filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. The revision petition has been allowed vide impugned order dated 24.3.2009 (Annexure P-5) while saying that it would be a consent order only if written consent of the parties is on the record. I have considered the substance of the issue. In this case of partition, the tubewell including the motor Civil Writ Petition No.11277 of 2009 3 have been observed to be in joint/common Khata. It is the admitted position that neither the counsel for the parties nor the parties have signed the mode of partition, giving their consent accepting condition No.9, as extracted above. In my considered opinion, if the tubewell and motor are kept in common khata, it shall create problems for both the sides in regard to turn of use of water/motor; repair of motor and other related issues. In such circumstances, even substantial justice requires that the matter is re- adjudicated by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Roopnagar. In view of the above, no interference is called for in order dated 24.3.2009 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Financial Commissioner, vide which order dated 7.8.2007 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Collector, has been upheld. . The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Roopnagar, on 1.3.2011. February 8, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?