CIVILWRIT PETITION NO.5983 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 03, 2011 Gurmit Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Punit Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. C. S. Jattana, Advocate for Ms. Anita Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Being aggrieved against the order of partition of the land which has been upheld by the Financial Commissioner, the petitioners have filed the writ petition to challenge the order on various counts. Dalip Singh (respondent No.5) had filed an application for partition of the land measuring 24 kanals 11 marlas situated in CIVILWRIT PETITION NO.5983 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: Village Ibrahamwal Taraf Gulab Nabi Khan, District Kapurthala. On 28.8.1998, Naksha Alaf was submitted by the revenue staff. As per the petitioners, the case was adjourned on 28.8.1998 for filing objections. The case again had to be adjourned on 4.9.1998 to 8.9.1998 for the said purpose. On 8.9.1998, statement of Angrej Singh, petitioner No.5, was recorded. Petitioner No.5 is stated to have admitted that the Naksha was correct but was objected to by him as per the petitioners. The petitioners would allege that Angrej Singh never made any such statement but still the file was sent to Halqa Patwari for submitting proposed mode of partition. The Advocates were on strike, when the case was again taken up for hearing on next date i.e. 15.9.1998. The case was adjourned to 16.10.1998, on which date mode of partition was approved without calling for objections from the parties. The case was then taken up on 26.11.1998 for preparation of Naksha zeem, which was submitted by the Kanungo on 26.11.1998. Objections were invited for the adjourned date i.e. 31.12.1998. No objections were filed and the case was adjourned to 16.2.1999. Finally, Naksha zeem was approved on the ground that no objections have been filed. The petitioners would allege that in fact the date on Naksha zeem was illegally changed to 3.12.1998 and has referred to Annexure P-3 in this regard. It is stated that Naksha zeem annexed with the file dated 16.2.1999 was materially altered. Copy of this Naksha and order dated 16.2.1999 are on record as Annexures P-4 and P-5 respectively. The petitioners filed an appeal against order dated 16.2.1999, which was dismissed by the Collector. However, the CIVILWRIT PETITION NO.5983 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, accepted the revision against the order of Collector on 16.4.2001. Respondent No.5 filed a revision against the same before Financial Commissioner, who has set-aside the order passed by the Commissioner and has up-held the order passed by the Collector. The petitioners, therefore, have filed the present writ petition. In the reply filed, respondent No.5 has denied the averments made in the petition that thumb impression of Angrej Singh was taken on blank paper by the revenue staff. As per respondent No.5, statement of petitioner-Angrej Singh was rightly recorded and his assertion now that the mode of partition was approved without calling the objections from the party is wrong. Similarly, the allegation that Naksha zeem was changed is denied. In fact, respondent No.5 would urge that Annexures P-3 and P-4 were supplied to him on 3.12.1998 as alleged is wrong and as per the reply, these Annexures clearly depict date as 16.2.1999. Having regard to the stands of the respective parties, the whole basis set-up by the petitioners is that signatures of Angrej Singh were obtained on blank paper and Naksha zeem, as agreed, was changed. The fact that petitioner No.5 had endorsed his signatures is not disputed. Why did he sign in blank is not explained in any manner. It is purely a factual dispute, which has been raised and this appropriately can not be gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In fact, both the counsel even could not point out the mode of partition, which statedly was prepared. Initially, Naksha Alfa was prepared, to which apparently no objection appears to have CIVILWRIT PETITION NO.5983 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: been filed. Mode of partition was accepted and the finding by the Financial Commissioner is that this was done in the presence of the petitioners. Moreover, this factual controversy can not be appropriately gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. August 03, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE