CWP NO.22610 OF 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *** CWP NO.22610 OF 2011 Date of decision: December 06, 2011. Nathu Ram ....Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue and others. ...Respondents. *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR *** Present: Shri P.K.Ganga, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J 1. The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the disposal of the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that Ram Chander son of Lachhu Ram and Sultan son of Madho Ram, moved an application for partition of their joint land in question situated in Village Farwain Tehsil & District Sirsa, under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The Assistant Collector Ist Grade recorded the statements of the parties and mode of partition was finalized by virtue of order dated 3.10.2007. The petitioner, Nathu Ram, filed appeal against the order of mode of partition, which was dismissed by the Collector through the medium of order dated 28.04.2008. Thereafter Naksha Bey was got prepared from Halqa Kanungo. 2. After hearing the parties, the land in question was finally partitioned by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, vide order dated 29.09.2008 (Annexure P-2). CWP NO.22610 OF 2011 2 3. Dis-satisfied with the order Annexure P-2, petitioner filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the Collector by way of order dated 03.06.2008 (Annexure P-4). 4. Sequally, revision petition filed by the petitioners at the first instance was dismissed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar by way of order dated 23.03.2010 (Annexure P-6) and then by Financial Commissioner by means of impugned order dated 28.04.2011 (Annexure P-8). 5. The petitioners still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders, Annexures P-2, P-4, P-6 and P-8, invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition. 7. However, the celebrated arguments of learned counsel that since the Assistant Collector did not decide the objections filed by the petitioner to the “Naksha Bey”, so the impugned orders are illegal, lacks merits. 8. As is evident from the record that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, after recording the statements and hearing the parties, finally partitioned the land in dispute vide order dated 29.09.2008 (Annexure P-2). Not only that, the Collector as well as the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner up-held the final partition order. The Financial Commissioner after taking into consideration the entire material on the record in the right perspective, rejected the claim of the petitioner by way of impugned order dated 28.04.2011, Annexure P-8, which in substance is as under:- CWP NO.22610 OF 2011 3 '' I have heard both the counsels and seen the record. The main case of the petitioner is that the objections on Naksha Bey have not been heard by the AC Ist Grade before deciding the case. A copy of application produced by them has no stamp or signature of any court official/officer and it is dated 29.9.2008 which is the date of decision of the AC Ist Grade. However, the proceedings of the Court which are recorded on the file does show that the objections were heard on Naksha Bey on 25.9.2008 and also on 29.9.2008. In fact, the recorded proceedings show that objections were heard and order was finalized. Therefore, even if the main order of the AC Ist Grade does not mention the objection on Naksha Bey, it would be wrong to set aside the order just on this ground when the reading of the file clearly shows that objections were heard by the court. The respondent also presented the copy of sanad taqsim dated 28.06.2010 which also nullify the claim of the petitioner that no instrument of partition was issued. Moreover, since the final order of partition has been passed, this Court cannot upset the final order of partition. Partition can be challenged in the civil court rather than the revenue court. Therefore, keeping in mind that there is no legal infirmity in the order of the partition passed by the Lower Court and no case has been made out for intervention by this court in the order of partition passed by AC Ist Grade on 29.9.2008, or the order of the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar and the revision petition is dismissed”. 9. That means, the Financial Commissioner having perused the record, recorded the finding of fact that although the Assistant Collector Ist Grade has observed that none of the parties have raised any objections to the “Naksha Bey” but as per the record the objections of the petitioners were heard on 25/29.09.2008. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade did not decide the objections of the petitioner, stricto-sense deserves to be and are hereby repelled. CWP NO.22610 OF 2011 4 10. In this manner, the revenue authorities have recorded the cogent reasons and rightly negated the claim of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation or material much less cogent to suggest how and in what manner any interference is warranted in the impugned orders. Therefore, to my mind the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner. 12. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. December 06, 2011. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Malik Judge