IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.822 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:22.1.2010 Nakli Ram and another -----Appellants Vs. Commissioner, Ambala Division and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. R.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellants. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing writ petition against order of revenue authorities sanctioning partition of agricultural land between the parties who are members of the same family. Partition application was filed by the contesting respondents under section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short, ‘the Act’). Usual mode of partition was decided of allotting land which was already in LPA No.822 of 2009 (O&M) possession of the parties and wherever possession of land having trees was to be exchanged, other party was to be accordingly compensated. Accordingly, partition was sanctioned against which order, appeal and revision were dismissed by the Collector and the Commissioner respectively. Thereafter, the appellants preferred writ petition in this Court raising objection to the partition by submitting that land bearing trees was wrongly given to the contesting respondents and the appellants were given land in scattered blocks. 2. Learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the contention raised and dismissed the writ petition with the observation that the appellants could not point out any infirmity in the impugned order and also could not substantiate the contention that the mode of partition had not been kept in view. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants at length and perused the record including the site plan sanctioning partition Annexure P.2. A perusal thereof shows that by and large, the land allotted to the appellants is contiguous. Learned counsel for the appellants, inter- 2 LPA No.822 of 2009 (O&M) alia, relied upon judgment of this Court in Ranbir Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2005(3) PLR 519, to submit that final order of partition could be challenged by way of writ petition. There is no dispute about this proposition. In the judgment relied upon itself, it was observed in para 9 that while examining orders in partition proceedings, this Court does not appraise correctness as an appellate or revisional forum and confines itself to examine legal infirmities. Examination of finding of fact is beyond the purview of this Court’s jurisdiction. Contention raised on behalf of the appellants relates to appreciation of facts and question whether land of equal value has been given to the appellants in accordance with the mode of partition. 4. We do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 5. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge January 22, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 3