Civil Writ Petition No.20748 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20748 of 2011 Date of Decision:12.12.2011 Tripta Devi Wd/o Atma Ram and others ......Petitioners Versus Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Kuldeep Singh Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, Atma Ram son of Ram Rakha, husband of Tripta Devi-petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 5, was the co- owner in the land in litigation. He moved an application(Annexure P-1) in the month of June, 1997, against his other co-sharers(private respondent Nos.4 to 19) for partition of their joint land, situated in the Village Sukhsal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar, before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade Anandpur Sahib. Accordingly, the Mode of Partition was proposed. Since, none of the parties raised any objections, so, the Mode of Partition was approved by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Consequently, after following the due procedure, final partition was effected by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, by virtue of impugned order dated 09.01.2001(Annexure P-3). 2. Dis-satisfied with the order(Annexure P-3), the petitioners filed the appeal, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by the Collector, vide impugned order dated 10.12.2001(Annexure P-4). Sequelly, the further appeal filed by them Civil Writ Petition No.20748 of 2011 2 was dismissed as well by the Commissioner(Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, by means of impugned order dated 06.10.2010(Annexure P-6). 3. The petitioners still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition (after lapse of period of more than one year), challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-6), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this respect. 5. However, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade has finally partitioned the land in question against the Mode of Partition, so, the impugned orders are illegal and nullity, lacks merit. 6. As is evident from the record that, Atma Ram son of Ram Rakha, husband of Tripta Devi-petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 5, co-owner of the land in dispute, moved an application(Annexure P-1), as back as on 16.06.1997. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade recorded the statements of the parties on 23.09.1998. Since, nobody had raised any objections, so, the Mode of Partition was approved by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, by way of order (Annexure P-2). 7. Having completed al the codal formalities and considering the entire material on record, ultimately, joint land was finally partitioned by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, through the medium of impugned order(Annexure P-3). 8. Although, the petitioners filed the appeal, but the same was dismissed for non-prosecution by the Collector, vide impugned order(Annexure P- 4). They did not bother to get the appeal restored for a long period of nine years and only filed the appeal before the Commissioner on 31.08.2010. Meaning thereby, the entire final partition proceedings came to an end and the “Sanad Taksim” has already been issued. Therefore, to me, under these circumstances, the Civil Writ Petition No.20748 of 2011 3 Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly concluded that no ground for re-opening the final partition proceedings, at this stage, is made out in this relevant connection. 9. At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any legal violation or material, much less cogent, even to suggest remotely that how and in what manner, the partition proceedings can now be re-opened at this belated stage, particularly when the same had already attained the finality. 10. Meaning thereby, since, the authorities have recorded the cogent grounds in this regard, so, to me, no ground for interference, in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction of this Court, is made out. Therefore, the impugned orders Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-6) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. December 12, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No