C.W.P. No. 2734 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 2734 of 2008 Date of decision: 02-07-2008 Surinder Singh & others ..........Petitioners Vs. Financial Commissioner Revenue and others .....Respondents .... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.Garewal Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary Present: Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners K.S.GAREWAL, J. This petition has been filed by Surinder Singh and two others to challenge the order of the Revenue Authorities culminating in order passed by Financial Commissioner Revenue dated November 12, 2007 in partition proceedings. In this case partition proceedings had been instituted by the petitioners on June 5, 1997, in respect of 185 Kanals-18 Marlas situated in Jharu Nangal, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar. The mode of partition was approved on May 7, 1999 and instrument of partition was made final on June 4, 1999. The appeal filed by the petitioners was accepted and the matter was remanded back. After remand fresh objections were filed by the petitioners. The Tehsildar went to the spot, recorded statements of the parties, considered the objections after seeing the revenue record and directed fresh instrument of partition on August 30, 2000. It was now the turn of the respondents to file an appeal before the Collector. Matter was C.W.P. No. 2734 of 2008 2 again remanded to the Tehsildar. On January 30, 2003 the Tehsildar passed a fresh order which went against the interest of the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed. Revision before the Commissioner too was dismissed. Likewise, revision before the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed. Revenue Courts have concurrently found against the petitioners after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, visiting the spot, examining the revenue record and giving the petitioners every opportunity of filing objections. There must be some finality of revenue proceedings. We do not think that this is a case in which any interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution. This petition is dismissed. ( K.S.GAREWAL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE July 02, 2008 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not?