IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.10556 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 04, 2011. Balbir Singh .....Petitioner versus The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9.4.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Hansi, determining the Mode of Partition in respect of the joint holding comprising agricultural land measuring 617 kanals 3 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Satrod Khurd, Tehsil and District Hisar, which has been further upheld by the Collector, Hisar vide order dated 15.7.2008 (Annexure P-3), by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, vide order dated 15.4.2009 (Annexure P-4) as well as by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide order dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure P-5). CWP No.10556 of 2011 [2] Broadly admitted facts are that the petitioner and the private respondents are sons/legal representatives of Dal Singh, Munshi and Bhagwana who are/were sons of Bhagtu. The dispute pertains to the partition of the agricultural land measuring 617 kanals 3 marlas situated in village Satrod Khurd, Tehsil and District Hisar, which was owned by the successors-in-interest of the petitioner and the private respondents, namely, late Bhagtu. The impugned orders have been passed in the partition proceedings initiated at the instance of the private respondents. It is indeed not in dispute that the land comprising the joint holding is located at three different places within the revenue estate of village Satrod Khurd, Tehsil and District Hisar. In the first round of litigation also, the petitioner was aggrieved by the Mode of Partition. When the matter came up for consideration before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, he vide order dated 14.8.2007 (Annexure P-1) directed as follows:- “The Assistant Collector, II Grade should have followed the directions given in the Punjab Land Administration Manual, 1987. He should have visited the village where the lands are situated, inspected the lands and satisfied himself as to whether the lands in possession of the different shareholders differ significantly in value and whether such difference in value is attributable to the shareholder in possession. His findings should have been explained to the parties before the MOP is determined. The order of AC II Grade regarding MOP in this case has been done without such application of mind. For this reason, I set aside the order of the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Hansi dated 16.8.2005, the order of the Assistant Collector, 1 Grade, CWP No.10556 of 2011 [3] Hansi dated 13.12.2005 and the order of the Commissioner, Hisar Division dated 1.3.2007 and remand the case to AC II Grade, Hansi with the direction that he would inspect the lands, from his own judgment on the value of the different pieces of land and determine Mode of Partition with a clear statement on the considerations of value of land, possession with parties and contiguity.” Pursuant to the above directions, the Assistannt Collector, 2nd Grade, Hansi, visited the three locations and vide order dated 9.4.2008 (Annexure P-2) determined the Mode of Partition, the relevant part whereof reads as follows: “3. That the land is situated at three places. Khasra Nos.212” 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9/2, 11/2, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16/2, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23/1, 24 are Nehri. This land is having more value than others. No contribution appears to have been made by any co-sharers. But it is due to Canal and Pakka Road. Keeping in view the type and value of this land, this be given as per share to all the share-holders and Khasra No.195” 23, 24, 25 is useless land which be given as per share to all the co-sharers. All the co-sharers be given front side of the land adjoining to road as per their share. Which land about 1 kilometer from the village and is situated on Dabra Road from Satrod Khurdr. 4. That second place where the land is situated is about 3 kilometer from the village. Khasra No.229”, 11, 12, 19/1, 20, 21, Khasra No.230” 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24/1, 24/2, 25 is Banjar land and bushes and kikar trees etc. are standing on the land and it is not cultivable. This land is having very fewer value than CWP No.10556 of 2011 [4] other land. Therefore, this be given as per share to all the co-sharers. Khasra No.233” 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15/2, is cultivable land. This land be given as per share to all the co-sharers. 5. That the third place where the land is situated is 6- 7 kilometer from the village which is situated on the border of Dabra-Ladwa and village Satrod Kalan. Khasra No.251” 23/2, 24/2, 25/1/2, 22/2/2, 21/2/2 and khasra No.252” 21/1/2 is situated in between Canals. No co- sharer is cultivating that land and it be kept out of partition. Khasra No.254” ½, 2/2/, 3/2, 4/2, 5/2 and khasra No.253” 1 is on a very lower side and in the shape of ditches and is filled with water and not cultivable. This land be given as per share to all the co-sharers. Rest of the land in khasra No.248” 25 and Khasra No.247” 21 and khasra No.251” 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22/1 and khasra No.252” 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20 and khasra No.253” 10, 11 and khasra No.254” 6, 7, 8, 9/1, 9/2, 10, 11, 12 13, 14, 15 adjoins to the Canal and it is nehri land. This land be given as per share to all the co-sharers. 6. That if any share-holder has taken any loan from any Bank, from any Society, from any Institution on the land under partition, he will be responsible to pay that amount and the loan will be treated on the land which will fall to his share. 7. Because there is lot of difference in the value and type of the land of the aforesaid area therefore, if possession is disturbed that will be alright. Gair Mumkin land may be kept out of partition....” The petitioner, his father and their other family members felt aggrieved and impugned the above reproduced Mode of Partition in appeal CWP No.10556 of 2011 [5] before the Collector, which was turned down vide the impugned order dated 15.7.2008 (Annexure P-3). Their revision petition filed before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar was also dismissed vide order dated 15.4.2009 (Annexure P-4) and the revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, too met with the same fate, who vide impugned order dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure P-5) approved the mode of partition after observing as follows:- “The land to be partitioned is situated in three khewats, which has been considered by the AC 2nd Grade, in the mode of partition. Commissioner has discussed the itemwise description of pieces of land as proposed by AC 2nd Grade. All the three khewats are of different values. The land nearer to the city is higher in value viz-a-viz the land away from the village. The ld. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon these observations of Divisional Commissioner submitting that the orders of AC 2nd Grade, proposing mode of partition was made only after AC-2nd Grade proposing mode of partition was made only after AC-2nd Grade conducted the spot inspection and also that all the three khewats are situated at different distances from the city, thus, having different values, I observe that the spirit of Financial Commissioner's order dated 14.8.2007 is very clear when it mentions that the AC-2nd Grade to inspect the land and determine mode of partition on the considerations of value of land, possessed with parties and contiguity. Thus, all the three factors i.e. the value of the land, possession with parties and contiguity are to be read together, in order to do justice with the mode of partition. Considering any individual factor made lead to CWP No.10556 of 2011 [6] injustice to one or the other parties, I am also of the opinion that considering all the three factors as observed by the Financial Commissioner in his order dated 14.8.2007 would lead to judicious determination of mode of partition. On the basis of foregoing discussions, I feel that the observations and conclusions of the Lower Courts in deciding the mode of partition are quire in order and warrant to interference at my level....” Still aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the records. It is vehemently urged that the authorities below have completely over-looked and bye-passed the observations and directions issued by the then Financial Commissioner, Haryana vide order dated 14.8.2007 (Annexure P-1) in as much as the factum of possession of the parties has not been taken into consideration while determining the Mode of Partition. It is urged that the petitioner is in exclusive possession of the land which is near to the Hisar City and had the factum of his possession taken into consideration, the authorities would not have divided the said land situated on Satrod-Dabra road (in close proximity of Hisar City) as the possession of the petitioner and his family member over the said piece of land deserves to be protected. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. It is not in dispute that village Satrod Khurd is situated in close proximity to the Hisar City. It is also an admitted fact that the joint holding of the parties is CWP No.10556 of 2011 [7] located at three different places within the revenue estate of Village Satrod Khurd. The petitioner wants to retain exclusive possession of the best land which is located at Satrod-Dabra Road and is very near to Hisar City. The said land though is “agricultural land' but carries urban potentiality and is of much higher value as compared to the other two pieces of land situated at far away places. In these circumstances, the distribution of very good or good or average land amongst the three sets of successors-in-interest of late Bhagtu in equal proportionate is a just, fair and equitable putting none of them to any dis-advantageous position. Dismissed. July 04, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE