Civil Writ Petition No. 356 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 356 of 2010 Date of Order: 13.09.2010 Gian Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Deepak Arora,Advocate for the petitioners Mr. C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 4 Mr. Rakesh Dadwal, Advocate for respondents no.5 to 7 RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 12.07.2005, 28.11.2005, 14.08.2006 and 04.03.2009, passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hoshiarpur, the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector, Hoshiarpur, the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and the Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab, Chandigarh, respectively. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the revenue officers have ignored the oral family partition, specifically pleaded by the petitioners and the fact that parties are in possession of their Civil Writ Petition No. 356 of 2010 -2- respective shares, in accordance with this oral family partition. The impugned orders should, therefore, be set aside as they are illegal and void. Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that the mere possession of separate parcels of land, is insufficient to infer an oral family settlement. The jamabandi, records that parties are co-sharers in possession thereby negating the plea of family partition. Counsel for the private respondents, however, submits that private respondents are also dissatisfied with the allocation of land as each co-sharer has been allotted land in each "kurra", thereby negating the very concept of partition. It is, therefore, prayed that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade should be directed to ensure that the 'Kurra" of each co-sharer is separated but after distributing the land abutting the main road, in accordance with their share holding. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to hold in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners have failed to adduce any evidence of the oral family partition as even otherwise, the revenue record continues to record the joint status of the parties. A perusal of the allocation of land appears to suggest that each co-sharer has been allotted land in each "Kurra". The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, should have made an attempt to provide a separate "kurra" to each co-sharer. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hoshiarpur, to finalise partition proceedings strictly in Civil Writ Petition No. 356 of 2010 -3- accordance with the mode of partition. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade shall, if possible, make an attempt to provide a separate "Kurra" to each co-sharer after equally allocating land that abuts the road, in accordance with the share holding. Parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hoshiarpur, on 11.10.2010, who shall decide the matter within three months from receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. September 13, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE