IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.4722 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 06, 2011. Satnam Singh .....Petitioner versus Financial Commissioner (Cooperative), Punjab ^& Ors. ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ankur Soni, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 8.8.2003, 21.7.2004, 24.4.2007 and 18.12.2009 (Annexures P-1 to P-4, respectively). These orders arising out of the partition proceedings initiated by the private respondents in respect of the agricultural land measuring about 200 kanals situated in three different villages of District Jalandhar. Vide the first impugned order dated 8.8.2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Jalandhar, the Naksha Zeem prepared after visiting the spot was approved and based thereupon Sanad Partition (Mode of Partition) was finalized. The aggrieved petitioner went in appeal which was dismissed by the Collector, Jalandhar-II vide order CWP No.4722 of 2011 [2] dated 21.7.2004 (Annexure P-2) after observing that the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Jalandhar had prepared the Mode of Partition after hearing both the parties and that reasonable opportunity to submit the objections was duly granted. The petitioner still felt aggrieved and filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who also turned down the same vide a self-speaking order dated 24.4.2007 (Annexure P-3), the relevant part whereby reads as follows:- “I have given my thoughtful consideration to the written arguments of the parties and have also carefully examined the record. The revision is competent under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, whereas the RR No.39 of 2005 has been preferred under Section 13 of the Act ibid which is wrong. It is further seen that the petitioner Nirmal Singh had not challenged the partition orders in appeals before the Collector, therefore, he has no legal right to come in revisions before this Court. The petitioners have failed to prove their assertion that the possessions have been disturbed and that they have been allotted inferior quality land. In fact, the petitioners have failed to rebut the contentions of the counsel for respondent/Harbans Singh that they have been equally adjusted on the metallic road land and that the partition has been effected strictly in accordance with sanctioned mode of partition. No material illegality and irregularity has been specifically pointed out. The revisions have no merits and are dismissed. Announced.....” The petitioner alongwith one Makhan Singh thereafter approached the Financial Commissioner, Cooperative, Punjab who too has CWP No.4722 of 2011 [3] dismissed their revision petition in the following terms:- “I have perused the record on the file and also considered the arguments of the learned counsels. It has come to know from the order of Assistant Collector 1st Grade that proceedings of the partition has been ordered to be final after hearing both the parties and taken into consideration their objections. Naksha Zeem has been got prepared afresh after hearing the objections of both the parties on Naksha Zeem. After perusing facts of the case, the Collector has dismissed the appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector. Thereafter, Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar has made it clear in his order dated 24.4.2007 that petitioners have failed to prove before him that inferior kind of land has been given to them. The petitioners also failed to prove that land adjoining to the road has been given to the respondents. The proceedings of partition have been done according to the mode of partition. In these circumstances, I find that there is nothing wrong in the order of the courts below, to which it may be necessary to correct through present proceedings.......” Still aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the records. The solitary contention that only two days time was granted by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Jalandhar to submit the objections against the proposed Naksha Zeem though appears to be attractive, however, is wholly insignificant. I say so for the reason that the parties were duly served and they were present before the Assistant Collector, First CWP No.4722 of 2011 [4] Grade, Jalandhar. The Naksha Zeem was prepared after visiting the spot at three places where the land is situated. In these circumstances, two days time granted to the parties to submit their objections, was reasonable and sufficient. Be that as it may, it is not the case of the petitioner that any objections were submitted by him or the same were not entertained by the authorities due to delay etc. Suffice it to mention that the partition proceedings cannot be allowed to be dragged for years together. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. July 06, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE