CWP No.15475 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15475 of 2010 Date of decision:30.08.2010 Harcharan Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab, Chandigarh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA. Present: Mr.G.B.S.Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Rangi, Advocate for the caveator. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA.J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 03.08.2009, 11.11.2009, 21.05.2010 and 13.07.2010, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ludhiana, the Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West), the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and the Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab, Chandigarh, respectively. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, finalised the mode of partition but before he could append his signatures, he was suspended on account of his arrest in a criminal case. His successor was therefore, required to follow the procedure prescribed by Order 20 Rule 8 of C.P.C. i.e. append his signatures on the mode of partition and direct that further proceedings continue on the basis of this mode of partition. Instead of following this procedure, the successor Assistant Collector, prepared a fresh mode of partition, that has disturbed the petitioner's possession. CWP No.15475 of 2010 -2- I have heard counsel for the petitioner. The long possession of the petitioner does not entitle him to retain possession as a co-sharer or to claim exclusive rights to any part of joint land. The petitioner is in occupation of a larger parcel of land that abuts the road and therefore, seeks to delay partition proceedings. The Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, is a revenue officer. The Code of Civil Procedure, does not strictly apply to proceedings before a revenue officer. The discretion exercised by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, in proceedings to frame a fresh mode of partition as his predecessor had not appended his signatures, does not call for interference as the new mode of partition reflects an equitable distribution of valuable land that abuts the road. No merit. Dismissed. 30.08.2010 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE