CWP No.14876 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.14876 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.03.2011 Sadhu Ram @ Sadhu Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Ors. … Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Sharma, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.2, 4 and 5. ***** AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner filed an application for partition of land measuring 98 Kanal 4 Marla. Mode of partition was declared by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagraon vide order dated 19th December, 2003, placed on record as Annexure P-4. 2. The petitioner had a grievance that the mode of partition did not incorporated “possession of land be maintained, as far as possible”. In view of this matter, the petitioner went up in appeal before the Collector. The Collector dismissed the appeal vide order dated 29.03.2004 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner went up in revision before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. 3. The Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide order dated 21.01.2005 (Annexure P-6) allowed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The respondents went up in revision before the Financial Commissioner, which has been allowed vide order dated 02.12.2008 (Annexure P-7). 4. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders CWP No.14876 of 2009 -2- passed passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Collector and Financial Commissioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents contends that the respondents, considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, would have no objection if the following is added in the mode of partition: - “Possession of land be maintained, as far as possible” 6. In view of the above, this petition is allowed, order dated 19.12.2003 (Annexure P-4) is hereby modified to the effect that mode of partition would include 'Possession of land be maintained, as far as possible.' MARCH 21, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Rajan JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?