1 434 n be CWP N03358 of2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION 3 e6e2011 10 Kulvinder Kaur and others eeePetitioners 0 1 VERSUS I JitSingh and others 0 I e e 4 Z CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI L I PRESENT2 MrVirender SinghRanace Mrl8shi Pal Rana Advocate for petitioners Z oo Permod Kohli J 7 Z Qe Assistant Collector GradeeINawanshahrframedmodeofpattition of the land in disputevide his order dated 982005 Pmllon the application of Jit Singh no l herein It is statedthat one of the stipulations ofthe proposed partition was thepossession ofthe 4mev shareholders Singhhowever filed objections againstthe proposedpartitionThese objections were dismissed by the learned AssistantCollectorGrade vide his orderdated 1982005 P41 It is the case of the petitioners that theyhad the land from the Rashmi 2014.07.02 15: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 4 435 GA 49 CWP Noe3358of2011 2 owners vide saledeed dated 2481964 executedby JagdishMUer son of Nand Lal whereasJit Singh the land Oom Sat Pal Joshi son of Jarnail Dass vide sale deed dated 7A1967 It is allegedthat the parties had their propertyon the basisof oral familyseulement even beforethepurchase ofthe land bythepartiesJit SinghSled an appeal againstthe order ofAssistant Collector Grade I dated 1982005 beforethe m Col lectorVawanshahr Collector after hearing the partiesdismissed the appeal no1eJit SinghJit Singhnot beingsatisfied with the 0 Ca0 order of the Collector filed a revision petitionbefore the leamed I Commissioner JalandharDivision Jalandhar who vide his order dated C5 I 171 02006 64nnexureI89 allowed his appealand held that the changes er Z can be made in the mode of partition and the of the paitiesCtUl 2 be dishirbed where the partitionlS not equitableIt was fiirther observed r C that partiescould get the land on metaled road Againstthis order of I j Commissionerthe petitioners Jit Singhson of Kanna SinpllJagtarSingh Z SOll of Darshan Singhand others 61ed revlSlOn before the Financial m CommissionerPunjabLeamed Financial CommissionerPunjabvide his 7 impugnedorder dated 111 l2010 Annexure Pe109passedin ROR Z tl No712007 dismissedthe same holdingthat there is no inflnnityin the impugned order of the CommissionerWhile passingthe impugned order the Financial Commissioner also observed that valuable land should be allotted to all share holdersand could be disturbed to that eeee extent This order is subject matter in the presentwrit petition The ocontentionteaisedon behalfof the petitioners is that therehas been oral family partitionbetween the partiesSlnce 1964 without any objection and thus their is not required to be distulbed It IS Rashmi 2014.07.02 15: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 436 4 CWP Noe3358of2011 3 further contendedthat oral familypartitionhas been acceptedby the CO sharers by not raising any objectionand the partieshave also made tmprovementson their shares Hence the orders of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissionerwherebythe partitionhas been allowed is not sustainablein law In the case of Mohan Singhand others vse Lachhman Singh1992PLJ 403 it hasbeenheld that wherethe a familypartitionand nature ofpossession of the parties can be providedby 0 oral as weIl as evidenceand thepartiesaccepted the same it is 0 0 nonnally to be giveneHect to ln the case ofHarbhajanSinghand others I 0 VSe Financial Commissioner Cooperaon Punjab Chandigarhand I others 200909RCR Civill 563 it has been observedthat where family 4 Z betweenthe cosharers is on the basisof the possession ofthe partiesthe revenue authoritiescan sanctionthe same Learned counsel for er thepetitioners hasalso referredto thecase ofMunna Lal aOeadlby LeRs X t etce Vn Suraj Bhan and others AIR 1975 SC 1119 whereinit has been Z held that a memorandumofpastevent the documentcould be received Ill CO 4 evidencethoughlt IS not registeredSimilar View has been expressedby w Z Honble Supreme Court in the case ofBakhtawar Singhvse Gurdev Singh Qm and anothet199619 SupremeCourt Cases 370 Commissionerin his impugned order held thatthoughthepossession is to be but not at the cost of rightsof thepartiesin respectto sharein most valuable land It hasbeennoticed that land on the roadl ont is obviously more valuableand C needs to be equallydistributed amongstall cosharers as per their entitlementHe has 81rtherheld that allegedpartition has got no legal sanctlty nor has been provedThis 6ndingof the Commissionerhasbeen afllnnedbythe FinancialCommissionerThe Commissionerand Financial Rashmi 2014.07.02 15: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 437 Qs CWP N03358 of2011 4 4 Commissioner both set aside the order of the Collector the possession at the time of partitionbyholdingthat the valuablepropenylS to be distributed amongstall the coesharersA similar view has been by this Court in the case of Baldev Singhvse The Foinaoncial Commissioner Haryanaand others 200321PLJ 501 wherein it has been observedas underl m 7Leamed counsel for the petitioner submittedthat the IearnedCommissioner has arbitraly set asidethe ordersof the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector 0 while observing thata pieceofland 32 kanals 0 which was allottedin the aforesaid Naksha Be to the petitioner was valuable lanrl Accordingto the I learned counsel for thepetitionerthere was no material C5 before the leamed Commissioner to hold that the aforesaidpieceofland was valuableland 81 have consideredthe aforesaid submissionsmade by Z learned counsel for thepetitionerIn my opinionthe said contentionis also devoid ofmerit In the instantcase the sanctioned mode of partitionprovidesthat partitionof r the land is to be eHectedbetweenthe partieskeeping lll View the value kind and possessionof land Vide I impugned orders iearned Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissionerhave come to the conclusion Z that the land hasnot beenpartitioned in accordancewith 4 the sanctionedmode of partition as the land allottedto the petitioner lS more valuable land as the same 1S m situated on the south of CheekaePehowaroad which 1S 4 touchingvillage badi It is fundamentalprincipleof w partitionthatevery coesharershould be giventhe land of Z equalvalue and havingsimilar potentialIn the instant case 32 kanals of land which was allotted to the tl petitioner in theproposedNaksha Bewas not 111 his possessionIf that 1S SO then the said pieceof land should havebeen allottedamong all the comsharers lll equalsharesbeingthe valuableland This has exactly been done bythe Commissioner in the impugned order W ln my opinionthere isno infirmityor illegalityor any error in theimpugned orders It cannot be disputedthat situated on the road side has much more value than the other propertyawayfrom the main road This fact has not been bythepartiesthat the propertyon the road side Rashmi 2014.07.02 15: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 438 0 CWP N003358of2011 5 d1P hasnot beendistributedequitably In view of the above circumstances no interferenceis warranted111 the impugned orderpassedbythe Financial Commissioner I Snd no merit in this petitionwhich is accordingly dismissed OOhl PERMOD KOHLII 4e 1 JUDGE PRONOUNCED ON2 0 3e2011 0 MFK I NotelWhether to be referred to Reporteror notYES 0 I Z 4 I Z 10 4 7 Z Clm 0 1 Rashmi 2014.07.02 15: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document