Civil Writ Petition No.19364 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19364 of 2011 Date of Decision:17.10.2011 Gurjant Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Gurvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record is that, the petitioners have filed an application for partition of their joint land under Section 111 of The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). The Assistant Collector Ist Grade proposed the Mode of Partition vide order dated 26.11.2008(Annexure P-1) and approved the same through the medium of another order dated 31.03.2009(Annexure P-2). 2. Dissatisfied with the mode/approval of the partition orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2), Karam Singh son of Chand Singh and others filed the appeal, which was accepted, the orders(Annexures P-1 and P-2) were set aside and the case was remanded back to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, by the Collector (Appellate Authority), by means of impugned order dated 25.09.2009(Annexure P- 3). 3. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-3) of the Collector, Kaur Singh son of Sukhdev Singh and Angrej Kaur widow of Sukhdev Singh, co-sharers filed the revision petition before the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot. Civil Writ Petition No.19364 of 2011 2 4. During the pendency of the revision petition and without awaiting the order of the revisional authority, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, only recorded the statement of Dharam Singh and again approved the Map 'B' (Naksha Zeem), by virtue of order dated 19.02.2010(Annexure P-4) in a very routine manner. 5. Ultimately, the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, accepted the revision petition and directed the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, to decide the partition proceedings afresh, in accordance with the provisions of Mode of Partition, by way of impugned order dated 18.03.2011(Annexure P-5). 6. The petitioners(herein) still did not feel satisfied with the impugned order(Annexure P-5) and preferred the present civil writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this regard. 8. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, since the Assistant Collector Ist Grade proposed and approved the Mode of Partition in accordance with law, so, the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, committed a mistake in remitting the case back to him for fresh decision, lacks merit. 9. As is evident from the record that, the Collector(Appellate Authority) has categorically held that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade did not inspect the spot and follow the due procedure of partition in order(Annexure P-3) and remanded the case. In the wake of remand of the case, during the pendency of the revision petition and without awaiting the order of the revisional authority, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade again repeated the same mistake and only recorded the statement of Dharam Singh and approved Map 'B'(Naksha Zeem) as per order (Annexure P-4). The Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, has noticed the illegalities, committed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, in ignoring the Mode Civil Writ Petition No.19364 of 2011 3 of Partition and directed him, to decide it afresh, in accordance with law, vide impugned order dated 18.03.2011(Annexure P-5), which in substance is as under:- “I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, are not speaking orders nor he has followed the provisions of Mode of partition as well as settled principles of partition. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Collector, Sub Division shows that though the Collector, Sub Division has remanded the case back to Assistant Collector Ist Grade, but he has not imparted clear directions to him to decide the same afresh after considering all the pros and cons of the case as well as settled principle of partition and provisions of Mode of Partition. He also has not directed the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to consider and discuss the objection raised by the parties. In these circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice in this case would only be met if this revision petition is accepted, impugned orders passed by both the lower courts are set aside and this case is remanded back to Assistant Collector Ist Grade (Tehsildar) Talwandi Sabo, with a direction to decide the same afresh fully in accordance with the provisions of Mode of Partition and settled principles of partition of land laid down by the Legislature, after considering all the pros and cons of the case as well as considering and discussing the objections raised by the parties and that too by passing a speaking order. I order accordingly.” Moreover, the petitioners would be at liberty to lodge their respective claims for partition of the joint land in the partition proceedings. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned order is illegal and would invite any interference by this Court in this relevant behalf. 11. Meaning thereby, the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, has recorded the cogent grounds in the impugned order in this respect. Such order, Civil Writ Petition No.19364 of 2011 4 containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned order(Annexure P-5) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. October 17, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE