C.W.P. No. 7021 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 7021 of 2008 Date of decision: 29-04-2008 Manohar Lal .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents .... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.Garewal Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary Present: Mr. S.R.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. K.S.GAREWAL, J. Manohar Lal and four others have filed this petition to challenge partition proceedings. The application for partition of 449 Kanals 1 Marla in Anandpur Jharoth, Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonepat was filed by the respondents. The bone of contention was an orchard. In the mode of partition Annexure P-1 it was provided that trees and garden/orchard be kept joint. Assistant Collector Ist Grade Kharkhoda invited objection to the mode of partition, the same were considered and rejected and mode of partition was sanctioned on June 23, 2003 (Annexure P-3). An appeal was filed by co-sharers before the Collector who on October 25, 2004 modified the mode of partition to the extent that the orchard be allotted to the party who had planted it. The petitioners filed revision against this order which was dismissed. Further revision before the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed. C.W.P. No. 7021 of 2008 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that question of title over the orchard should have been referred by the revenue courts to the civil court for decision before partition proceedings were finalized on the question whether the orchard was joint property or the sole property of one party, as this was the question of title. In this regard reference is made to Division Bench of Lahore High Court in Muzaffar Ali Vs. Ghazanfar Ali AIR 1935 Lahore 175. The main argument of the petitioner is that the orchard could not be partitioned between co-sharers until its title was determined. We are of the view that trees growing thereon are attached to land, therefore, during partition this fact can be taken into consideration and the Revenue Courts are not required to consider who planted the trees. It would suffice if they consider the trees on the land and carry out the partition accordingly. It is almost akin to partitioning of land with standing crop because the value of land with standing crop will naturally be higher than the land which is lying fallow. On the same analogy the land which has fruit bearing trees would have more value than land which is lying fallow. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders of the Revenue Courts on the ground that a question of title was involved. We find no merit in this petition. Petition is dismissed. ( K.S.GAREWAL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE April 29,2008 RSK