Civil Writ Petition No. 16399 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 16399 of 2006 Date of Order: 30.07.2010 Santokh Singh alias Sukhdev Singh ....Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab Chandigarh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. V.K.Sandhir,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondent no.1. Mr. Malkeet Singh,, Advocate for respondent No.4 RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 21.08.2003, 18.06.2004, 06.10.2005 and 04.08.2006, passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Phillaur, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector, Phillaur, the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh, respectively. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though his electric water pump is installed in khasra no.7/1/2, this khasra number has been allotted to the other co-sharers. It is further argued that partition proceedings are null and void as the petitioner’s house, situated in Khasra No.8 has been allotted to Gurdev Singh, respondent no.2 and in addition the petitioner has been allotted land Civil Writ Petition No. 16399 of 2006 -2- in eight separate blocks. Counsel for respondents no.3 and 4 submits that the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner are factually incorrect. The petitioner has been allotted his house in khasra no. 8 but the petitioner seeks to appropriate the entire vacant land in khasra no.8, which has been allotted to other co-sharers. It is further submitted that as per the site plan the petitioner has been alloted land at one place. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and am of the firm opinion that the petitioner has filed this petition with the sole object of delaying partition proceedings. Partition proceedings were initiated on 16.07.1993 i.e. more than 17 years ago but have not attained finality on account of repeated appeals etc., one more frivolous than the other. The record reveals that the house constructed by the petitioner in Khasra No.8, has been allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, seeks to appropriate the entire vacant land in khasra no.8, to his exclusive ownership. This land has been appropriated amongst other co- sharers whereas the petitioner has been allotted land adjoining his house. The site plan prepared during partition discloses that the petitioner has been allotted land in one block and not in eight blocks, as alleged. As regards the electric motor in khasra no.7/1/2, as it is movable property , the petitioner may remove the motor and take it to his new khasra number. In the absence of any legal infirmity in the impugned orders, the writ petition is dismissed. July 30, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE