IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1700 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 15.12.2011 Ajaib Singh .... APPELLANT Versus Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed by appellant Ajaib Singh against the order dated 21.7.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 12797 of 2011) filed by the appellant challenging the orders dated 14.12.2009; 9.3.2011; and 23.5.2011 (Annexures P-1, P-3 and P-5), passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jalandhar; Collector, Jalandhar; and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, respectively, whereby the objections filed by the appellant to Naksha Ura were dismissed and the partition effected in the said Naksha Ura was approved, has been dismissed. LPA No. 1700 of 2011 -2- While challenging the aforesaid orders of the revenue authorities in the writ petition, the appellant argued that the partition was effected by the revenue authorities in gross violation of clause 4 of the Mode of Partition and two Karams constructed area of the appellant has been wrongly allotted to respondents No.4 to 6. After going through the record and hearing counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the appellant and dismissed the writ petition, while observing that clause 4 of the Mode of Partition gives weightage for retention of possession by the co-sharer who has installed tubewell bore, raised kotha or have constructed building etc. However, it has been found that the appellant raised construction on the prime piece of land abutting the road and has constructed his shops, including a service station. In partition, the appellant was given the constructed portion to the extent of 8 karams out of 10 karams on the road. The major portion of the best piece of land has already been given to the appellant's share. Keeping in view this fact, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, while coming to the conclusion that a fair and equitable partition has been effected between the parties and such order does not require any interference in the writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, could not point out any thing as to how the partition effected by the revenue authorities is unfair. Admittedly, the major portion of the land, i.e. 8 karams out of 10 karams on the road, has been given to the appellant. LPA No. 1700 of 2011 -3- He wants that the entire land on the road should be given to him. In our opinion, such claim made by the appellant is not only contrary to the sanctioned mode of partition, but is also highly unreasonable and unfair. Therefore, the same cannot be accepted. No merit. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 15, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE