IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1590 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 02.09.2011 Parbhat Singh …..Appellant versus Financial Commissioner Appeals-II and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Appellant and respondent Nos.4 to 20 are the co-sharers in the land, in dispute, qua which partition proceedings were initiated at the instance of respondent No.4. Appellant took a defence of private partition, that was not accepted and ‘mode of partition’ was framed, which had become final. Thereafter, final partition was effected, which the authorities below and also the learned Single Judge have found that it was done as per the ‘mode of partition’. If that is so, at this stage, the appellant cannot say that the ‘mode of partition’ was not properly framed and plea of private partition was wrongly ignored. The learned Single Judge has dealt with the above issue as under:- “Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised. The Collector vide the order dated 5.10.2006 (Annexure P-2) categorically observed that the private LPA No.1590 of 2011(O&M) partition has not been proved on record and what has been brought on record is only the mutual exchange. The Collector further observed and rightly so that a co-sharer may improve a particular portion of the joint holding and enjoy the fruits of separate possession but that shall not amount to partition of the joint holding. The Financial Commissioner while approving the view taken by the Collector, has further observed that as per the 'mode of partition', share holders have been given 'valuable' and 'orchard land' as per their respective shares. It is further observed that the petitioners never challenged the 'mode of partition' nor any objection filed by them against the final partition. Be that as it may, the 'mode of partition' prescribed and followed by the authorities is based on just, fair and equitable considerations, namely, the distribution of the valuable and orchard land amongst all the share holders. Keeping in view the scope of interference by a writ Court in concurrent findings of fact, I do not find it a fit case to interfere with the impugned orders. Dismissed.” We feel that the order passed is perfectly justified. Once, the ‘mode of partition’ has become final, the partition is supposed to be effected in terms of the ‘mode of partition’. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 02.09.2011 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 2