In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.4640 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:24.3.2008 Arvind Kumar and others .....Petitioners v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others .....Respondents .... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary Present: Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... S.S. Saron, J. By way of the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure-P.4) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.1) and the order dated 30.3.2006 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala (respondent No.2). The petitioners and respondents No.5 and 6 are admittedly co- sharers in the land in dispute. On 22.5.1980, respondent No.6 filed an application for partition of the joint agricultural land of the petitioners and respondents No.5 and 6. The application was allowed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade-cum-Tehsildar, Jagadhri on 23.7.1983 and partition was ordered. On the basis of the order dated 23.7.1983, the Halqa Patwari entered Mutation. The petitioners assailed the order dated 23.7.1983 and C.W.P. No.4640/2008 [2] also the Mutation before the Collector, Jagadhri. The order dated 23.7.1983 and the Mutation were set aside on 13.6.1990. The order dated 13.6.1990 setting aside the mutation has not been placed on record. On 8.8.2003, Ram Parshad (respondent No.6) filed an application for sanctioning the mutation on the basis of order dated 23.7.1983. The Assistant Collector vide his order dated 17.2.2004 (Annexure-P.1) dismissed the same. Respondents No.5 and 6 filed an appeal against the order dated 17.2.2004 (Annexure- P.1) and the Collector, Yamuna Nagar dismissed the appeal vide order dated 6.10.2004 (Annexure-P.2). Respondents No.5 and 6 thereafter filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala (respondent No.2) who vide his order dated 30.3.2006 (Annexure-P.3) allowed the same. The petitioners thereafter filed ROR against the order dated 30.3.2006 (Annexure-P.3). However, the same was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.1) vide his order dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure-P.4). Accordingly, the orders dated 30.3.2006 (Annexure-P.3) and dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure-P.4) are assailed in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in view of Section 122 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (`Act' – for short) an application for effecting partition could only be entertained within a period of three years from the date recorded in the instrument of partition. It is also contended that the order dated 13.6.1990 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagadhri was never challenged by respondents No.5 and 6 and it attained finality. Therefore, it is submitted that a second application filed by respondents No.5 and 6 for implementation of the order dated 23.7.1983 C.W.P. No.4640/2008 [3] was not maintainable and the earlier order was liable to be upheld. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. It may be noticed that respondent No.6 filed an application for partition of the land which was allowed vide order dated 23.7.1983 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagadhri. According to the petitioners, the proceedings could not be finalized and possession of the land was not delivered to the co-sharers as per the said order of partition. Even Mutation that was entered was subsequently set aside by the Collector vide order dated 13.6.1990. The petitioners for reasons best known have not placed on record the copy of the order dated 13.6.1990. A perusal of the impugned order dated 30.3.2006 (Annexure- P.3) shows that the partition of the land in dispute was completed on 23.7.1983. Thereafter, on 2.9.1983 the `Sanad' of partition was issued. In compliance with the order of partition, warrants of possession were also issued. It was observed that after issuing of warrants of possession, it is the duty of the revenue officer to make necessary entries in the revenue records. Therefore, it was injustice to the petitioners (now respondents) that after the issuing of warrants of possession for effecting partition of land in dispute, the revenue officer/officials had not entered mutation changing the entries in the revenue record. The Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1) in his order dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure-P.4) has also noticed that the partition was effected in 1983 and possession was delivered in 1988 as per Rapat Roznamcha. It was also observed that as per the rulings cited by the learned counsel that symbolic possession also means delivery of actual possession. It was observed that the partition has been completed long back and there was no prejudice to the appellants and mutation is merely an C.W.P. No.4640/2008 [4] updating of the revenue records. It may be noticed that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application for partition was barred by time, inasmuch as, it was not filed within a period of three years from the date recorded in the instrument of partition and that the order dated 13.6.1990 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagadhri was never challenged by respondents No.5 and 6. The question of there being bar of limitation under Section 122 of the Act is misconceived as it has been noticed that the `Sanad' i.e. instrument of partition was prepared on 2.9.1983. Thereafter, the possession was delivered in 1988 as per Rapat Roznamcha. The question that symbolic possession was delivered is also of no significance as that would include the delivery of possession for the purpose of the Act. As is well known delivery of symbolic possession would mean delivery of actual possession. The question that the order dated 13.6.1990 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade was never challenged by respondents No.5 and 6 and that it attained finality is also inconsequential. As already noticed, the said order has not been placed on record. Therefore, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the petitioners. Besides, the partition having been effected and necessary changes made in the revenue records in accordance with the `Sanad' of partition would not result in any prejudice to the petitioners. Even otherwise as is well known that the mutation entries do not confer any right and is only for fiscal purpose. In any case, the mutation having been entered in accordance with the `Sanad' of partition the revenue records have been updated. Moreover, there is nothing to dislodge the findings and conclusions reached at by the revenue authorities under the provisions of the Act. C.W.P. No.4640/2008 [5] In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( S.S. Saron) Judge March 24, 2008. (Daya Chaudhary) Judge *hsp*