Civil Writ Petition No. 12045 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 12045 of 2010 Date of Order: 12.07.2010 Amrik Singh & others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh,Advocate for the petitioners. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioners challenge the order dated 29.01.2010, passed by the Financial Commissioner Co-operation, Punjab, setting aside the final order of partition dated 26.05.2004, passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Phillaur and the orders dated 18.03.2005 and 05.09.2006, passed by the Collector, Phillaur and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. Admittedly, Respondents no.2, 8, 9 and 10 are residents of Canada but were arrayed in partition proceedings by giving their village addresses. The notice issued to Balbir Kaur, at the village address was not received back served or otherwise. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, without ordering issuance of a fresh notice ordered service by proclamation. The respondent no.2 was thereafter proceeded against ex-parte and partition proceedings concluded with the drawing up of a Sanad Takseem. The final order of partition was challenged by way of appeal primarily on the ground that ex-parte proceedings are illegal and void. The Collector and the Commissioner dismissed the appeal. The Financial Commissioner accepted the revision filed by the respondents by holding that as the respondents were not served at their addresses in Canada and as service by proclamation could not be effected in the village Civil Writ Petition No. 12045 of 2010 -2- on persons who are residents of Canada, the order of partition is a nullity. Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent no.2, the only contesting respondent was aware of partition proceedings as she was duly served by proclamation at her address in the village. It is argued that In addition, she has failed to plead or prove any prejudice and, therefore, the order setting aside the ex-parte proceedings would only delay the matter. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders. Admittedly, respondents no.2, 8, 9 and 10 are permanent residents of Canada. This fact was, however, concealed in the application for partition. Admittedly, no notice was issued or served at the address in Canada. The alleged service by proclamation at the village address is a nullity as a N.R.I. cannot be served by proclamation at the village address. An argument that respondent no.2 has failed to plead or prove any prejudice, is irrelevant. The Financial Commissioner, therefore, rightly held that as respondents no.2, 8, 9 and 10 have not been served, partition proceedings are null and void. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. July 12, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE