CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18732 OF 2006 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 12 , 2009 Surat Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. P. K. Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 to 12 and 17 to 19. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The grievance of the petitioners is that there has been an arbitrary and inequitable partition of the land but the same has been approved by the Financial Commissioner and accordingly they have impugned the said order passed by the Financial Commissioner through the present writ petition. Respondent Nos.5 to 10 and 12 to 19 are vendees of a co-owners, Raghbir and Lakhi. Respondent Nos.4 and 11 filed two CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18732 OF 2006 (O&M) :{ 2 }: separate partition petitions on 24.12.1992 and 16.7.1993. Assistant Collector IInd Grade ordered partition of the land on 16.2.1994. The land was divided into five lots, out of which one was given exclusive to Sh.Lakhi and one exclusively to two sets of vendees of Lakhi and one exclusively to the vendees of Raghbir and one lot was given jointly to Raghbir and the petitioners. Initially mode of partition was proposed on 5.10.1993, which was set-aside by the Commissioner on 5.3.1999. The case was remanded for fresh partition proceedings from the stage of proposed mode of partition. When the parties appeared before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, he amended the mode of partition only to the extent that Party No.6 amongst the second party, Raghbir Singh shall get a separate khewat. Rest of the mode as proposed was kept intact. The petitioners again challenged this and ultimately Commissioner, Rohtak Division, vide his order dated 22.12.2000, set-aside the orders passed by the Courts below and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector with a direction that the objections received on map `Kha' be decided keeping in view the observations made in the order after inspecting the suit land in the presence of the parties. While passing this order, the submission made before the Commissioner that respondent, Raghbir Singh, was allotted more land from the area adjoining the village and has not been allotted any land from the area with the Yamuna Barrier, which is a land of lesser quality. Raghbir Singh had transferred specific killa numbers to respondent Nos.1 to 6 while the land was joint. It was accordingly observed that he could have only sold his share in the land and could not have sold particular khasra numbers. This order was challenged CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18732 OF 2006 (O&M) :{ 3 }: by Raghbir Singh before the Financial Commissioner, who has allowed the revision on 14.7.2005, which is now impugned by the petitioners before this Court through the present writ petition. The primary grievance of the petitioners is that as per the mode of partition every one was to be given land keeping in view the value thereof. Though there is justification for giving separate khewat to all the co-sharers, including Raghbir Singh, as was approved in the mode of partition dated 5.3.1999, but still, the partition was to be done strictly in accordance with the mode, as approved. The grievance of the petitioners is that the land under Yamuna belt was sold to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and respondent Nos.2,3,4 and 5 and the same was mutated in their favour. It is accordingly urged that they had purchased the land of lower value and have now become greedy and want possession of the valuable land. The Financial Commissioner found that mode approved by Assistant Collector on 19.10.1993 was not objected to by the parties, which does not seems to be factually correct. In fact, this mode was challenged and accordingly the mode was set-aside for preparing fresh mode of partition. Still, the mode was not substantially changed except that separate khewat was to be given to Raghbir Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out from the mode of partition if the land was to be partitioned according to the value. As per the mode, 5 lots were to be formed and were to be given to different parties. The partition was to be done keeping in view the possession. Though the Financial Commissioner has observed that the partition has ultimately been done strictly as per the mode but the counsel could not clarify as to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18732 OF 2006 (O&M) :{ 4 }: which condition contained in the mode of partition was violated. It is, thus, appropriate to remand this case back to the Financial Commissioner, for the petitioners to point out that partition was in violation of the mode approved. The Financial Commissioner shall re-consider the prayer of the petitioners in the light of submission that partition is not done as per the mode of partition as proposed and approved. The Financial Commissioner would consider this aspect and see if the partition has been done strictly in accordance with the mode of partition or not. He would also see if the proposed mode was ultimately approved and various Naksha prepared. If he finds that partition was done strictly in accordance with the mode accepted by the parties, he would be at liberty to uphold the earlier order passed by him and impugned in the writ petition. On the other hand, if he is of the view that the partition was done ignoring the mode as approved, he may pass any appropriate order, in accordance with law. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. May 12, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE