IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition 9746 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.7.2009 Shankar Ram …Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner Appeals-I Pb and ors …Respondent Present: Mr Suneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. S.S. SARON, J. CMs 11452-53 of 2009 Site Plan (P10) attached with the CM is taken on record. The CMs stand disposed of. CWP 9746 of 2009 This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the orders dated 23.9.2008 (P9), 13.3.2008 (P8) both passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I) Punjab, 30.4.2007 (P4) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ferozepur, 25.4.2006 (P4) passed by the Collector (SDM) Fazilka and the order dated 18.10.2005 (P2) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fazilka. Shankar Ram – petitioner as also Prithi Ram and Mohan Lal (respondents-5 and 6 respectively) filed separate applications for partition of 2 parcels of land measuring 22 Kanals 9 Marlas and 60 Kanals 2 Marlas in village Singhpura, Tehsil Fazilka, Distt Ferozepur. The applications were clubbed together by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade Fazilka vide order 1 CWP 9746 of 2009 (O&M) dated 11.12.2003. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade Fazilka vide order dated 26.7.2005 (P1) determined the mode of partition which inter alia included that the partition would be made while keeping the possession intact and if any of the co-sharer was in possession of surplus area, in that eventuality, the possession would be disturbed. Thereafter, the partition proceedings were settled by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fazilka vide order dated 18.10.2005 (P2). Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed appeal (P3) before the Collector, Fazilka which has been dismissed vide order dated 25.4.2006 (P4). Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed revision (P5) before the Commissioner, Ferozepur, which has been dismissed vide order dated 30.4.2007 (P6). Still aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision petition (P7) before the Financial Commissioner, which has been dismissed vide order dated 13.3.2008 (P8). Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition which has been dismissed vide order dated 23.9.2009 (P9). The petitioner has assailed the said orders passed by the revenue authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the mode of partition was settled between the parties. However, while finalising the partition, the mode of partition had not been kept intact. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been given inferior quality of land. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner has referred to the site plan (P10) and contended that the land on the West has been given to the petitioner which was not in his possession. A perusal of the site plan (P10) does not depict as to which area has been given to the petitioner and which area has been given to respondents-5 and 6. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has on the basis of record not been able to show or establish his 2 CWP 9746 of 2009 (O&M) possession of the land which he claims is in his possession. Therefore, it is quite evident that the petitioner is unable to clearly depict as to which land was in his possession and that the same has not been allotted to him. Besides, the petitioner has also not been able to show on the basis of revenue records as to the quality and nature of the land. It has not been shown as to whether the land which has been allotted to him is of inferior quality. In fact, no material has been placed on record to show as to where the petitioner has been allotted land and that the same is of inferior quality or as to what is the nature of the said land. In the circumstances, there is nothing on record to dislodge the concurrent findings of facts reached at by the revenue authorities in pursuance of the impugned orders. It is well known that this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction does not sit in appeal over the orders passed by the revenue authorities. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 15.7.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 3