IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. CWP No.19534 of 2008 Date of decision: 18.12.2008 Surjit Singh ....Petitioner. vs. Assistant Collector Grade-II and others. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. --- Present: Mr. S.S.Godara, Advocate, for the petitioner. -- J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral) Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the partition of joint land between the petitioner himself and respondent Nos. 5 to 22. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner raised only one objection against the partition recorded by the Revenue Authorities, in respect of the smallest tuck, wherein, according to the petitioner, the petitioner has been assigned one killa of land. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the land in the village under reference can only be used for agricultural purposes, and cannot be used for any other purpose whatsoever. As such, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in place of one killa of land in this tuck, he should have been provided one killa of land in another tuck, wherein, majority of the land vests with the petitioner. In order to ascertain the claim raised by the petitioner, we have perused the mode of partition, which has been placed on the record of this CWP No.19534 of 2008 (2) case as Annexure P2. Clause 3 of the mode of partition reads as under:- “ While partitioning the property, cultivation and possession be kept in mind. After making good the deficit, fair & equitable share from good as well as average land be partitioned to minimum extent”. It cannot be disputed on the basis of the aforesaid clause of the mode of partition, that while effecting partition attention had to be paid to the kind of land as well. Shares had to be equally divided in good, as well as, average land. It is based on the aforesaid clause in the mode of partition, that one killa of land has been provided to the petitioner, in the tuck under reference, which adjoins river Ghaggar. This piece of land is likely to be inundated by the flood of water seasonally. The claim of the petitioner that he should not be provided any land in this tuck, is clearly misconceived in view of clause 3 of the mode of partition. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition, and the same is, accordingly dismissed. ( J.S.Khehar) Judge (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge December 18, 2008 rk