CWP No.14537 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.14537 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.3.2010 Jangir Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I),Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. J.R. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Arun Jindal and Mr.Kashmir Singh, Advocates for the petitioners. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside orders dated 8.1.2009, 26.10.1998, 31.3.1998 and 5.12.1996, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I,Punjab, the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, the Collector, Patiala and the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Patiala. Balbir Kaur executed a sale deed dated 12.7.1957 selling the entire land including the share of her minor sons Kuldeep Singh and Tejinder Singh. Upon attaining majority, Kuldeep Singh and Tejinder Singh, challenged the correctness of this sale deed. Vide judgement and decree dated 26.2.1976, the sale deed was set aside with respect to the shares of Kuldeep Singh and Tejinder Singh. The appeal and the second appeal filed by the petitioners were dismissed, thus confirming the CWP No.14537 of 2009 2 ownership of Kuldeep Singh and Tejinder Singh to the extent of 2/3 share of the land. Kuldeep Singh and Tejinder Singh, respondents no.5 and 6 filed an application for partition of the land in dispute. The petitioners filed an application praying that partition proceedings be stayed in view of the pendency of a civil suit. The application was dismissed and the Naksha A was sanctioned on 4.9.1984. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioners were dismissed. Vide order dated 15.12.1992, the Financial Commissioner remanded the case to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade- Tehsildar, Patiala. Boota Singh, father of petitioner no.3 filed CWP No.13250 of 1993, which was dismissed on 22.10.1993 by holding that the question of title has already been decided by a civil court. The petitioners thereafter filed another application praying that partition proceedings be stayed, as the question of title had not been decided. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Patiala vide order dated 30.11.1994 allowed the petition without considering the objections raised by the petitioner. In an appeal before the Collector, the Collector accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Patiala. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Patiala, framed the mode of partition. The petitioners once again filed appeal and revision, which were dismissed. The petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition, which was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Financial Commissioner. The revision filed by the petitioners before the Financial commissioner was dismissed on 8.1.2009. Counsel for the petitioners submits that partition proceedings, as carried out by revenue authorities are a nullity, in view of the judgement CWP No.14537 of 2009 3 and decree dated 20.2.1986, passed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Patiala. The revenue authorities are required to reflect the share holding as determined by this decree. It is further submitted that as original applicants have sold their share in the land, the application for partition should have been dismissed as infructuous. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and express my inability to accept the writ petition or to hold that revenue authorities have committed any error of law, as would require interference. The petitioners argument that revenue officers have disregarded the shareholding determined in the judgement and decree dated 20.2.1986, must fail. This judgement has been held to be a nullity in civil suit no.42 of 26.8.1998 decided on 1.4.2002, as it was obtained by concealing the judgement and decree dated 26.2.1976. As regards the argument that the proceedings are infructuous as the original applicants Kuldeep Singh and Tejinder Singh have sold their share, suffice it to state and as admittedly, the sale was effected during pendency of partition proceedings, the vendees from Kuldeep Singh and Tejinder Singh have, therefore, stepped into their shoes and even if not parties to partition proceedings are bound by orders that have been passed in partition proceedings. In view of what has been stated herein above, the writ petition is dismissed. 25.3.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE