HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.14542 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.08.2011 **** Darbara Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab & Ors. . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. AS Gill, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. Amandeep Soni, Advocate for respondent No.5 Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.12 ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 29.11.2001, 25.04.2003, 26.04.2005 and 17.03.2009 (Annexures P1 to P4, respectively) which have been passed pursuant to a application moved by private respondent No.5 for the partition of agricultural land measuring 238-K 15-M situated within the revenue estate of Pandori Rehmana, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (in short, ‘the Act’). CWP No.14542 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner, contesting respondent No.5 and other pro forma respondents were co-sharers in the joint holding. There is a concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner and the pro forma respondents (who were the contesting respondents in the partition application) did not appear before the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Tarn Taran and as such were proceeded against ex parte despite service through ordinary course, munadi and by pasting the notices. The field staff visited the site and prepared both the maps i.e. preliminary and final. The ‘Mode of Partition’ was finalized and the joint holding was partitioned in accordance with the said Mode. (3). The aggrieved petitioner filed an appeal primarily on the ground that he is in exclusive possession of Khasra Nos.32/13, 14, 17, 18 where he has constructed his residential house and a ‘Haweli’. The petitioner relied upon the approved ‘Mode of Partition’ to urge that these khasra numbers, where he has his solitary residential house, ought to have been allotted to him. (4). The petitioner’s appeal was turned down after taking notice of the fact that his residential house was in Khasra No.32/13 only which has been allotted to him. There was no house or ‘Haweli’ in Khasra number 14 or 17 and 18 as CWP No.14542 of 2009.doc - 3 – claimed by the petitioner. The afore-stated finding of fact has been concurrently approved by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities also. (5). It may be mentioned here that the ‘Sanad Takseem’ i.e. order of final partition was passed on 29.11.2001. The petitioner challenged that order belatedly, may be, to prolong the partition proceedings. (6). Be that as it may, the petitioner was directed to place on record the material to show that he was in possession of the land comprising in Khasra No.32/14 & 17 prior to the order of final partition. No such material has been placed on record except to harp on the plea that the petitioner’s tubewell and haveli are situated in these two khasra numbers. (7). The petitioner and respondent No.5 were directed to remain present in Court in order to ascertain the correct facts. The petitioner did not turn up though respondent No.5 came along with photographs to show that the house constructed by the petitioner falls in khasra No.32/13 and there is no ‘haveli’ or ‘tubewell’ in khasra No.32/14. Yet respondent No.5 agreed to give half of khasra No.32/14 abutting khasra No.32/13 to the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner would give equal piece of land to respondent No.5 out of khasra No.37/3/1 towards CWP No.14542 of 2009.doc - 4 – the side of respondent No.5’s land. One more opportunity was given to the petitioner to consider the offer made by respondent No.5. He however, did not turn up. (8). Counsel for the parties have been heard on merits and the records perused. (9). I find from the site plans (Annexure P5 & P6) placed on record by the petitioner that the joint holding has been partitioned keeping in view the well-known principles like protection of existing possession to the extent possible and minimum fragmentation of the holding. There is absolutely no material on record that any ‘haveli’ has been constructed by the petitioner over Khasra No.32/14 or 17. The photographs shown on his behalf suggest a recently-raised temporary structure to park the bull-cart or tractor etc. (10). Having regard to the scope of interference by a writ court in such like matters, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. 03.08.2011 Vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge