Civil Writ Petition No.19070 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19070 of 2011 Date of Decision:12.10.2011 Khiloni and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.B.S.Tewatia, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant civil writ petition and emanating from the record is that, in the wake of application filed by petitioners-Khiloni son of Ram Dayal and his son Nandan, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade(for brevity “A.C.Ist Grade) ordered the partition of joint land of the parties. After following the due procedure, Certificate of Partition(Sanad Taksim) was finally prepared vide impugned order dated 06.01.2009(Annexure P-1). 2. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-1) of the A.C.Ist Grade, the petitioners filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the Collector, by way of impugned order dated 29.12.2009(Annexure P-2). 3. Still dissatisfied with the impugned orders(Annexures P-1 and P-2), the petitioners filed the revision petition, which was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, by virtue of impugned order dated 17.05.2011(Annexure P-3). The further revision petition filed by them was dismissed as well by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, by means of impugned order dated 07.09.2011(Annexure P-4). Civil Writ Petition No.19070 of 2011 2 4. The petitioners still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders (Annexures P-1 to P-4) of the authorities below and preferred the present civil writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this respect. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, since the A.C.Ist Grade did not partition the joint land, as per its kind and value, so the authorities below committed a mistake in passing the impugned orders, is not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well. 7. As is evident from the record that, the petitioners have put the partition proceedings in motion and moved the application for partition of the joint land. Having completed all the codal formalities, A.C.Ist Grade has rightly sanctioned the Certificate of Partition(Sanad Taksim), as per their respective shares, kind and value of the land, vide impugned order dated 06.01.2009 (Annexure P-1), which was affirmed by the Collector in appeal, through the medium of impugned order dated 29.12.2009(Annexure P-2). 8. Not only that, the impugned orders(Annexures P-1 and P-2) were further upheld by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, by way of impugned order dated 17.05.2011(Annexure P-3), the operative part of which is as under:- “After hearing the arguments of the ld. counsels for both the parties carefully and on perusal of the files of the court below it is revealed that in the case on 16.9.2008 the Mode of partition was sanctioned and the amended map 'B' was received on 20.12.2008 on which the applicants raised their objections on 30.12.2008 in which they stated that the amended map 'C' has been prepared against the spot in which the possession and category has not been kept in mind. The Assistant Collector Grade First after hearing the objections of the applicants on 6.1.2009 sanctioned the amended map 'C' has completed the partition. Against the above order, the applicant filed an Civil Writ Petition No.19070 of 2011 3 appeal in the court of Collector. The Collector vide his order dated 29.12.2009 has dismissed the appeal of the applicants on 29.12.2009. The applicants filed an Revision in this court against both the orders passed by both the courts. The objections raised by the applicant before the Assistant Collector First Grade on 30.12.2008, were simple objections. They have not presented and tangible objections and nor they have stated in this objections that on which Killa numbers they are in possession. Mere saying that the possession and category has not been kept in mind, is wrong. The applicants may make it clear in their objections that as to how the provisions given in the Mode of Partition have been violated by the Assistant Collector, First Grade. The applicants at the time of filing the suit for partition in the court of Assistant Collector, First Grade have not written that on which Kila numbers they were in possessions. Where in the land in dispute the possession is not described on specific killa numbers, then in such circumstances the possession of all the co-sharers is treated there. The Assistant Collector First Grade have correctly rejected the objections of the applicants and they have correctly initiated the proceedings of partition. The Collector has correctly rejected the appeal of the applicants. Therefore, I do not consider the necessity of any sort of amendment in the orders of both the courts below, do hereby reject the Revision.” 9. Above all, order(Annexure P-3) of the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, was accepted by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, by virtue of impugned order dated 07.09.2011(Annexure P-4). 10. Moreover, site plan(Annexure P-5) would go to show that A.C.Ist Grade has adopted a well-established principle of partition and equitably partitioned the land between the parties, as per their respective shares, its kind and value in this relevant connection. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any legal violation or material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned orders are illegal and would invite any interference by this Court in this context. 12. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned Civil Writ Petition No.19070 of 2011 4 counsel for the petitioners, to assail the impugned orders((Annexures P-1 to P-4). All the remaining celebrated contentions, now sought to be urged on their behalf, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the authorities below. 13. Meaning thereby, the authorities have recorded the cogent grounds in this regard. Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned orders are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 15. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. October 12, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE