IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.12797 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 21, 2011. Ajaib Singh .....Petitioner versus Commissioner, Jalandhar Division and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Collector Grade-I, Jalandhar finalizing the mode of partition of the joint holding in which the private respondents (NRIs) are also co-sharers. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the orders dated 9.3.2011 and 23.5.2011 (Annexures P-3 & P-5) passed by the Collector, Jalandhar and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, respectively, upholding the above mentioned order of the Assistant Collector Grade-I. While finalizing the mode of partition, the authorities below strictly adhered to Clause-4 of the Mode of Partition which gives CWP No.12797 of 2011 [2] weightage for retention of the possession by the co-sharer who has installed tubewell bore, raised kotha or have constructed building etc. It is revealed that the petitioner raised construction on the prime piece of the joint land abutting the road and have constructed shops including a service station. In the mode of partition, the authorities have saved the petitioner's constructed portion to the extent of 8 karams out of 10 karams. The major portion of the best piece of land has, thus, gone to the petitioner's share. He is still dissatisfied and wants to retain the portion allotted to respondent No.4. His plea has, however, been turned down by the authorities below. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, I do not find any error of jurisdiction in passing of the impugned orders. The mode of partition is based upon a fair and equitable consideration which has been given full effect while partitioning the land. The petitioner has got a bigger share out of the prime property, leaving no scope for interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. July 21, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE