HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.7085 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.08.2011 **** Gurdial Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Financial Commissioner, Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Balbir Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 23.05.2006, 18.01.2008, 29.04.2010 & 30.11.2010 (Annexures P2 , P3, P5 & P6, respectively) passed by the respondent-Revenue Authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 in the partition proceedings initiated by the private respondents. (2). The consolidated ‘Mode of Partition’ was proposed way back on 08.12.2004 for the entire joint holding measuring 121 kanals 16 marlas and after considering the objections made by the aggrieved persons that it was finalized on 16/17.1.2005. Thereafter, both the maps were finalized by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Anandpur Sahib and vide order dated 23.5.2006 (Annexure P2) warrant of CWP No.7085 of 2011.doc - 2 – possession was issued. The petitioner felt aggrieved against the finalization of the map and preferred an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed vide order dated 18.1.2008 (Annexure P3). He thereafter preferred a revision petition which has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide order dated 29.4.2010 (Annexure P5) after observing that since the ‘Sanad Takseem’ has already been issued, the Revenue Authorities have become functus officio. The petitioner relentlessly approached the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab who has also turned down his revision petition vide the impugned order dated 30.11.2010 (Annexure P6) after observing as follows:- “I have carefully gone through the revision petition and the orders of the lower courts. Thought he petitioner joined the proceedings before the A.C.I he did not file any appeal against Naksha Urra and also against Mode of Partition. It is a settled law that partition is to be made strictly according to the provisions of approved Mode of Partition. I do not see any cogent reason to disagree with the findings of the ACI and the Collector which are hereby affirmed….” 2 CWP No.7085 of 2011.doc - 3 – (3). It may, thus, be seen that the petitioner never felt aggrieved against the preliminary map or against the ‘Mode of Partition’ and raised no objection. No factual or legal error in the ‘Mode of Partition’ or the maps has been pointed out nor it is explained as to what serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. (4). Suffice it to observe here that the parties who are in possession of the land in excess to their share, seldom allow the partition proceedings to be finalised. The present case appears to be the one falling in that category. (5). No interference by this Court in the concurrent finding of fact returned by the Authorities below is called for in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. (6). Dismissed. 04.08.2011 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) Judge 3 CWP No.7085 of 2011.doc - 4 – 4