CWP No.3166 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3166 of 2006 Date of Decision: 27.1.2010 Kulbhushan Lal .....Petitioner Vs. Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II,Punjab and others ....Respondents ..... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr.Surinder Singh, Advocate for respondents no.5,6 and legal representatives of respondent no.4. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for respondents no.7 to 12. ...... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 25.10.2005, passed by the Financial Commissioner, (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh, setting aside the entire proceedings for partition and remitting the case to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, for deciding the matter afresh. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the joint land was partitioned in accordance with the sanctioned mode of partition. The Sanad Takseem was issued on 19.11.1999, possessions were altered on 8.5.2003 and a consequent mutation was entered. Despite partition proceedings CWP No.3166 of 2006 2 having attained finality, the Financial Commissioner set aside partition proceedings by holding that valuable land abutting the main road has not been allotted to respondent no.3. It is argued that the site plan establishes that land allotted to respondent no.3 abuts the main road. The Financial Commissioner has, however, ignored the site plan. It is further argued that after sanction of the Sanad Takseem, the alteration of possessions and the sanction of the mutation, the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere with partition proceedings. During the pendency of the writ petition, Ram Kumar, respondent no.3, has sold 19 kanals 18 marlas of land to respondents no.7 to 12 out of his land holding measuring 24 kanals 15 marlas of land. As a result, his objection does not survive. Despite service, no one is present on behalf of respondent no.3. Counsel for respondents no.5, 6, 7 to 12 and the legal representatives of respondent no.4 state that they have no objection, if the order passed by the Financial Commissioner is set aside and the partition proceedings are affirmed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the order 25.10.2005 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab. A perusal of the order discloses an abject failure on the part of the Financial Commissioner to peruse the record, particularly the site plan, Annexure P-10. The site plan clearly reveals that a major part of the land allotted to Ram Kumar abuts the main road. The finding recorded by the Financial Commissioner to the contrary is factually incorrect. Even otherwise, respondent no.3 has sold 19 kanals 18 marlas of land, out of his total land holding of 24 kanals 15 marlas to respondents no.7 to 12, who have no objection, if the order passed by the Financial Commissioner is set aside. CWP No.3166 of 2006 3 In view of what has been stated herein above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 25.10.2005, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab is set aside. 27.1.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE