LPA No. 240 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 240 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 11, 2009 Rai Singh and another ...Appellants Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 5, 7 to 13. ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition against the order in proceedings for partition of land between co-sharers. 2. Respondent No.5 filed an application before the Assistant Collector under Section 113 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, for partition of common holding. The appellants filed objections against the proposed partition, which were rejected by order dated 28.3.2003 (Annexure P/2). On appeal, vide order dated 2.7.2004 (Annexure P/6), the Collector remanded the issue for decision of objections to the original authority with the observations that it was necessary to decide the question of title raised by the appellants and spot inspection was necessary. In compliance thereof, fresh order was passed on 3.6.2005, which was again challenged with the grievance that direction in the order of remand was not complied with. The appellate authority rejected this objection and held that direction had been duly complied with. Spot inspection had been carried out and decision taken LPA No. 240 of 2009 2 on objection for inclusion of particular parcel of land. The orders passed by the Collector and appellate authority were affirmed by the revisional authority by order dated 28.9.2006 (Annexure P/14) and also by the Financial Commissioner by order dated 26.7.2007 (Annexure P/16). 3. The appellants filed writ petition submitting that question of title had not been decided and the area in which construction has been raised by the appellants was wrongly not allotted to him. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition rejecting the submission. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has again raised the same contention that the question of title was not decided and spot inspection was not carried out. 6. We are unable to accept the contention, in view of findings recorded by the Collector, Commissioner, Financial Commissioner and learned Single Judge. It is not disputed that out of total 274 kanal of land, the appellants have been allotted 54 kanals towards 1/6th share. The writ court does not sit in appeal over the decision of statutory authorities. Interference is permissible only if there is an error apparent on the face of record. On this parameter, we are of the view that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 11, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE LPA No. 240 of 2009 3