CWP No.19054 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 19054 of 2006 Date of Decision: November 26, 2011 Jagtar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. H.S. Grewal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Manish Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 7 and 12. Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for resposndent No.11. Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate, for respondent No.14. Paramjeet Singh, J. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner (Jagtar Singh) for quashing of order dated 13.09.2006 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Financial Commissioner, order dated 23.05.2006 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, upholding the order of the Collector dated 09.03.2006 (Annexure P/2) whereby order dated CWP No.19054 of 2006 2 10.01.2005 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade approving mode of partition has been set aside. Brief facts of the case are that Amarjit Singh (respondent No.7) filed an application for partition of joint land comprised in various khewats in the revenue limits of Village Mehon, Tehsil and District Patiala. After completing various stages, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade framed mode of partition vide order dated 10.01.2005 (Annexure P/1) (vernacular version of mode of partition seen). Jagdish Singh one of the respondents challenged the mode of partition by filing appeal before the Collector. The Collector set aside the order dated 10.01.2005 of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide order dated 09.03.2006 (Annexure P/2) and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Patiala to partition land khewatwise, keeping in view, the quality of land and the front of the land touching the road, land be given to all co-sharers according to their share. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner that too has been dismissed in limine vide order dated 23.05.2006 (Annexure P/5) and the Financial Commissioner also dismissed the revision vide order dated 13.09.2006 (Annexure P/6). Hence this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as documents annexed with the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that order dated 10.01.2005 (Annexure P/1) has been passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade after visiting the spot, as per the mode of partition. The same has been wrongly set aside by the Collector vide order dated 09.03.2006 CWP No.19054 of 2006 3 (Annexure P/2) and order of the Collector has been wrongly and illegally affirmed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner vide impugned orders. The road in fact is not private passage. It is along the embankment of the Canal, in fact it is a “Patri”. The land is not more valuable. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that road is along the canal embankment in fact is being used by the public as thoroughfare. The land touching the canal side road is more valuable and has commercial potentiality. The order passed by the Collector is to the effect that land should be partitioned khewatwise as per value of the land. This order affirmed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner is in fact according to the mode of partition which postulates that land should be partitioned according to inferior and superior quality. The Collector correctly observed that the land touching the canal road should also be given to all co-sharers as per the share of co-sharers. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable and is hereby rejected for the reason that it is a basic principle in the partition cases that land is to be divided according to superior and inferior quality of the land. The land touching the canal road certainly has high commercial potentiality and is more valuable. No loss will be caused to the petitioner if the land touching the canal road is given to all the co- sharers as per their shares. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner apprehends that his possession shall be disturbed and a built-up house and a bore-well installed in the `Tak' will be affected. He only seeks CWP No.19054 of 2006 4 an assurance that his aforesaid portion should not be disturbed. Learned counsel for the respondents have given assurance that the house of the petitioner and borewell will not be disturbed. The learned counsel for the parties after seeking instructions from the respective parties submit that petitioner's house is in khasra No. 416 and borewell is in khasra No. 418. If the constructed house and borewell part is included in the share of the petitioner, then respondents have no objection. Remaining land touching the canal road be partitioned according to the respective shares of the co-sharers. In view of the above, orders of the Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner are upheld except to the extent that the petitioner's house constructed in Khasra No. 416 and borewell in khasra No. 418 shall be included in the share of the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Writ petition disposed of. November 26, 2011 ( Paramjeet Singh ) Amit K./vkd Judge