IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.9881 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 26, 2011. Parbhat Singh .....Petitioner versus Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Avnish Mittal, 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 is aggrieved by the orders dated 5.10.2006, 6.8.2009 and 19.1.2011 (Annexures P-2, P-3 & P-4), passed by the Collector, Dhar Kalan, Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar as well as the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, respectively, in a matter pertaining to partition of the joint holding. Vide the impugned orders, the application moved by the private contesting respondents for partition of the alleged joint holding has been allowed and while approving the mode of partition prepared by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Dhar Kalan, the plea taken by the petitioner that a private partition has already taken place between the parties, has CWP No.9881 of 2011 [2] been turned down. One of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner before this Court also revolves around the alleged partition by mutual consent. It is asserted that even if the private partition is not reflected in record though acted upon by the parties, it cannot be negated only for the reason of non- affirmation from the revenue authorities as held by this Court in Ajmer Singh versus Dharam Singh (2006 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 541. 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 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. CWP No.9881 of 2011 [3] 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. July 26, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE