Civil Writ Petition No. 13444 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 13444 of 2010 Date of Order: 02.08.2010 Shiv Kumar & others ....Petitioners Versus Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. G.S.Nagra,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate for caveator-respondent No.5 RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 13.10.2005, 01.11.2006, 13.03.2008 and 02.02.2010, passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Anandpur Sahib, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib (exercising the powers of Collector), the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala and the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab, Chandiagrh, respectively, during partition proceedings. Counsel for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners have 1/8th share, the land allotted is a narrow strip, which cannot be put to any use much less for the construction of a house. It is submitted that as the petitioners were originally in possession of a rectangular plot of land, the original possession of the petitioners Civil Writ Petition No. 13444 of 2010 -2- should be restored. Counsel for the caveator-respondent no.5 submits that the breadth of the land allotted to the petitioners is two karams i.e. 11 feet and, therefore, the petitioners' submission that this land cannot be used, is factually incorrect. It is further submitted that this land adjoins the petitioners' other land and, therefore, the present petition is a mere attempt to delay partition proceedings, which commenced in the year 1992. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The total land under partition measures 2 kanals and 1 marla. Partition proceedings commenced almost two decades ago i.e. in the year 1992. For one reason or the other these proceedings have remained pending. The petitioners' submission that they have been allotted a narrow strip of land, which cannot be used for any purpose is factually incorrect as this land is two karams wide. A perusal of the site plan discloses that the land was so partitioned to accommodate all co-sharers in land, abutting the main road. As held by the Financial Commissioner though the petitioners are entitled to 1½ karams, they have been allotted 2 karams. No merit. Dismissed. August 02, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE