IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.5345 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 25, 2011 KAKA SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-I), PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. SK Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. A.K. Sharma, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate, for respondent No.11. Mr. Gulzar Mohd., Advocate, for respondent No.12. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 In this Civil Writ Petition, challenge is to order dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure P-3), order dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P- 4), order dated 13.12.2007 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 5.2.2008 (Annexure P-6). 2 Vide order (Annexure P-3), Naksha Bey has been finalised. The petitioner carried an appeal, which has been dismissed vide order (Annexure P-4). The petitioner carried a revision before the Commissioner, which has been dismissed vide order (Annexure P-5). The Financial Commissioner, vide order (Annexure P-6), has upheld the orders passed by the subordinate authorities. Sanad Takseem dated 15.1.2007 (Annexure P-9) has Civil Writ Petition No.5345 of 2010 2 been drawn according to the partition proceedings. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the court towards clause-4 of the mode of partition (Annexure P-1), which reads as under:- “4. If any co-sharer has constructed the bore, Motor or electric connection or has constructed house/Kotha, then it will be tried that the same land be allotted to that co-sharer. The land abutting the road shall be divided as per the share of the parties.” 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that although, as per the mode of partition, land abutting the road was required to be divided as per the share of the parties, the petitioner has not been given any land on the road. 5 On the second count, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been given land less than his share. 6 Learned counsel for respondent No.11 contends that even respondent No.11 has been given less share than his ownership at the time of partition. Respondent No.12 is the gainer, who has been given land more than his share. 7 Respondent No.12 has not filed any reply to state his case. 8 Be that as it may, I have considered Aks-sajra (Annexure P-7). The land of the petitioner has been placed at the end, without any access to the main Amloh-Khanna road. Clearly, the mode of partition has not been followed. There is a discrepancy in regard to the share of land allocated to the parties also. Civil Writ Petition No.5345 of 2010 3 9 Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed. Orders (Annexures P-3, P-4, P- 5 and P-6) are hereby quashed. The case is remanded to Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amloh, with directions to reinitiate the proceedings, after redrafting Naksha Bey, in accordance with the mode of partition, after taking into account the share of each shareholder. 10 The parties, through their respective counsel, are directed to appear before Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amloh, on 4.5.2011. The proceedings shall be concluded by 5.8.2011. 11 It is directed that none of the parties shall delay the proceedings. April 25, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?