IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 2190 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 02, 2011 Anokh Singh …Appellant Versus Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the Appellant. Paramjeet Singh, J. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against order dated 13.09.2011 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 5 to 8 filed an application for partition of land measuring 61 kanals 2 Marlas situated in village Kot Budha, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. On notice, the appellant appeared and contested the case. After consideration, partition was allowed. Naksha Alf was called. Thereafter, mode of partition was framed on 23.06.2003 (Annexure P/1) and Naksha Bay (wrongly mentioned as Naksha Zeem) was called. Objections were filed by Sucha Singh and others (respondent Nos. 5 to 8) which were rejected by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide order dated 30.09.2003 (Annexure P/4). LPA No.2190 of 2011 Thereafter, respondent Nos. 5 to 8 preferred an appeal before the Collector. The Collector vide order dated 31.03.2004 (Annexure P/5) came to the conclusion that land touching in the mettled road is more valuable. So, the land should be partitioned quality-wise as per their shares. Thereafter, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner, who dismissed the same vide order dated 20.06.2007 (Annexure P/6) by recording a finding that it is settled principle of partition that each co-sharer is entitled to land as per his entitlement out of superior/commercial/most valuable land. The clause 3 of the mode of partition framed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade is to the effect that land shall be partitioned quality-wise. Thereafter, the appellant preferred revision petition before the Financial Commissioner that too, has been dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2010 (Annexure P/7) upholding the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned order, as well as orders of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. Admittedly, land comprised in Khewat No. 164,Khatauni No. 394, 395, Rectangle No.4, Killa No. 17/1/2(6-14), 24/1(1-11), 4//14(8-0), 17/1/1(0-7) are commercial in nature and are situated on the mettled road which leads to Batala from Kahnuwan. This land is certainly valuable than the other land involved in the partition. The revenue authorities had recorded a finding that as per the provisions of Mode of Partition, land is to be partitioned quality-wise. The Collector had set aside the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade by recording a finding that commercial land 2 LPA No.2190 of 2011 should be partitioned according to the share of the co-sharers. That finding has been affirmed by the Commissioner, as well as, the Financial Commissioner and also has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the orders passed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner had been upheld. Dismissed in limine. ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE December 02, 2011 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkd JUDGE 3