C.W.P.No.18372 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18372 of 2009 Date of Decision: 1.12.2009 Rajinder Singh and others ....Petitioners. Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeal II), Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. G.S. Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.1 whereby the orders dated 20.4.2005 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing the appeal and dated 24.5.2004 passed by respondent No.3 remanding the case to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagraon with a direction to comply with the order dated 7.9.2001 have been affirmed. The order dated 7.9.2001 was upheld by this Court in CWP No. 17288 of 2002 whereby it was directed that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagraon shall ensure that the land with the greater value which has a frontage on the road is divided equally between the co-sharers and the remaining land be partitioned on the basis of the possession. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record with his assistance. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated 29.7.2009 (Annexure P-6) in para 3 had recorded as under:- C.W.P.No.18372 of 2009 -2- “3. I have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner mentioned that since order of Financial Commissioner (Appeals II) dated 7.9.2001 has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court, the Collector had no power to set aside the order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagraon dated 22.12.2003. I have gone through the record of the case. Financial Commissioner (Appeals II) in her order dated 7.9.2001 had ordered that a new mode of partition should be proposed so that land with greater value which has a frontage of road is divided equally amongst co-sharers and for the remaining area, partition be done in accordance with their share while respecting the possession as far as possible. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagraon in his order dated 22.12.2003 has not kept these parameters in view while deciding the mode of partition. The Collector vide his order dated 24.5.2004 has rightly observed that the order dated 22.12.2003 of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagraon is not in consonance with the directions of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II) given vide her order dated 7.9.2001. At this stage the case stands remanded to Assistant Collector Ist Grade who should finalize the mode of partition as per the directions given in the order of Financial C.W.P.No.18372 of 2009 -3- Commissioner (Appeals-II). Accordingly, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. As a long period has elapsed since filing of application for partition, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagraon is directed to finalize the partition proceedings within a period of six months.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 22.12.2003 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagraon but has not been able to show that the said order complies with the direction issued by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 7.9.2001. A perusal of the order dated 22.12.2003 (Annexure P-3) shows that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagraon had not discussed anything with regard to the greater value of the land which had a frontage on the road as to whether the same had been partitioned in terms of the order dated 7.9.2001 passed by the Financial Commissioner. Moreover, the matter has been remanded by the Collector to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagraon only to comply with the aforesaid order and determine the mode of partition in accordance with law. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed in limine. December 1, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE