Civil Writ Petition No. 12394 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 12394 of 2007 Date of Order: 20.07.2010 Angrej Singh ....Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner Appeals-I, Punjab Chandigarh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Kulbhushan Soi,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for respondent no.3. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 28.01.1999 and 19.01.2006, passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Mamdot, District Ferozepur and the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner is admittedly a co-sharer, the mutation recording an exchange between Gurbachan Singh and Kashmir Lal, with respect to 1 Kanal and 5 Marlas of land is illegal as Gurbachan Singh has been recorded in separate possession of this land. It is submitted that the order passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade and the Financial Commissioner is vitiated, as a prior notice was not served upon the petitioner. It is argued that as parties are co-sharers, no co-sharer can be held to be in possession of a particular portion of land. Civil Writ Petition No. 12394 of 2007 -2- Counsel for respondent no.3, on the other hand, submits that respondent no.3 purchased land measuring 1 kanal and 12 marlas from Rectangle No.17 Killa No.8(7-2) vide sale deed dated 22.12.1998 from Sadhu Singh. Mutation No.2076 was sanctioned in the name of respondent no.3. The possession of this land was also delivered to respondent no.3. He thereafter exchanged the land measuring 1 Kanal and 5 Marlas with Gurbachan singh, respondent no.4. It is submitted that as the exchange took place between Gurbachan Singh and Kashmir Lal, the petitioner has no right to interfere in mutation proceedings as even otherwise he is in possession of a different portion of Rectangle No.17, Killa No.8 Min (3-17). I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. Admittedly, the land in dispute has not been partitioned. It, however, appears that parties are in possession of different parcels of joint land and have raised construction. It is not denied that the petitioner is not a party to the exchange between Gurbachan Singh and Kashmir Lal. The petitioner, therefore, has no right to be impleaded as a party or to be served with a notice in proceedings for sanction of mutation on the basis of the exchange. The land in dispute has not been partitioned. The sanction of a mutation of ownership or of possession, in favour of any one of the co- sharers, does not effect the rights of other co-sharers, as land is held jointly and till partitioned vests in each co-sharer with a community of interest and a commonality of possession. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to seek his remedy by way of partition in accordance with law. July 20, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE Civil Writ Petition No. 12394 of 2007 -3-