IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13705 of 2009 Date of decision : 3.9.2009 Kaur Singh ….. Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Chandigarh and Others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is that in the partition of 145 kanals 15 marals of land, the land measuring 2 kanals 9 marlas comprised in rectangle No.79 khasra Nos.24/2/1 is liable to be allotted to Niranjan Singh son of Jhanda Singh (respondent No.5) and to respondents No.6 to 10 who are the LRs of Smt. Sito sister of Niranjan Singh (respondent No.5). According to the petitioner, an agreement to sell dated 25.11.2002 was entered into between the petitioner and aforesaid Niranjan Singh (respondent No.5) and Smt. Sito with regard to sale of land measuring 2 kanals 9 marals comprised in rectangle No.79 khasra No.24/2/1. The petitioner had filed an application dated 26.8.2003 (Annexure P5) before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Tehsildar (Mansa) for transposing him as the applicant. The said application was filed so as to protect the interest of the petitioner as regards the aforementioned land measuring 2 kanals 9 marlas. CWP No. 13705 of 2009 [2] Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the land measuring 2 kanals 9 marlas which was agreed to be sold by Niranjan Singh (respondent No.5) and his sister Smt. Sito has not been allotted to them and they have in collusion with the other co-sharers got allotted different land so as to defeat the rights of the petitioners with respect to the said land. As such the partition proceedings are liable to be corrected so that land measuring 2 kanals 9 marals is allotted to Niranjan (respondent No.5) and Smt. Sito. After hearing learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusing the record, it may be noticed that the petitioner being co-sharer of land measuring 145 kanals 15 marlas is entitled to land measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas. In other words, he is owner to the extent of 1 kanal 10 marlas and the said land measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas comprised in rectangle No.79 khasra No.24/2/3 has been allotted to him in terms of ‘khatoni pamaish’ dated 17.4.2003 (Annexure P6). The claim of the petitioner stands satisfied with the allotment of the said land. However, in view of the agreement dated 25.11.2002 entered into by the petitioner with Niranjan Singh (respondent No.5) and Smt. Sito, the petitioner wants that the land which was agreed to be sold by them (respondent No.5 and Smt. Sito) to him should be allotted to them only so that he can get the same. The petitioner, it is submitted, has also filed a civil suit for specific performance of agreement dated 25.11.2002. It may be noticed that the application dated 26.8.2003 (Annexure P5) has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he apprehended that the applicants Niranjan Singh (respondent No.5) and Smt. Sito who had filed the application for partition were likely to withdraw their application. This would, according to the petitioner, cause an irreparable loss to him because Naksha Bey has been received in the application for partition. It was submitted therefore that at the said stage, the applicants had CWP No. 13705 of 2009 [3] no right to withdraw the application for partition. There is no mention in the said application that the petitioner has an interest in the land measuring 2 kanals 9 marlas comprised in rectangle No.79 khasra No.24/2/1. Rather it is his stand that Naksha Bey has been received in the application for partition. There is no objection even to Naksha Bey. Besides, the petitioner cannot claim by specific portion of land in an application of partition of which he is not yet become the owner. In case even it is to be accepted that Niranjan Singh (respondent No.5) and Smt. Sito had agreed to sell the land comprised in specific khasra No., the same would be taken to be an agreement to sell of the share of the land only as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 105. Besides, it may be noticed that the said land comprised in rectangle No.79 khasra No. 24/2 has been allotted to Shagandeep Singh. Niranjan Singh (respondent No.5) and Smt. Sito have been allotted land measuring 13 kanals 2 marals in rectangle No.128 khasra Nos.24/3 (6-11), 25/2(1-11), rectangle No.141 khasra No.4/7 (2-7) and 7/1 (2-13). The learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) had finally disposed of the objections raised by the petitioner vide order dated 22.8.2008 (Annexure P1) i.e. almost a year back. The partition proceedings have been settled and the respective co-sharers are in owners of possession of the land. Therefore, at this stage, it would not be sound to disturb the partition and that too on the mere ground that the petitioner has some interest in a particular khasra No. which is otherwise yet to be established by the civil Court. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 3, 2009 amit