Civil Writ Petition No.19686 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19686 of 2011 Date of Decision:19.10.2011 Sukhdev Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandary Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, Gurdial Singh son of Harnam Singh(respondent No.5) filed an application(Annexure P-1) for partition of the joint land in question under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and Rules framed thereunder(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and Relevant Rules”). The Mode of Partition was prepared and Maps were approved by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. The petitioners filed the objections to the effect that the land of superior quality bearing Khasra Nos.1829 to 1832 was given to respondent No.5, whereas the remaining land of inferior quality was given to them and no passage was provided to the land, where their tubewell was installed. 2. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, duly considered the matter and dismissed the objections filed by the petitioners, by way of impugned order dated 04.09.2003(Annexure P-2), which was affirmed by the Collector in appeal, by virtue of impugned order dated 27.11.2003(Annexure P-4) as well as by the Civil Writ Petition No.19686 of 2011 2 Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala(Revisional Authority), except certain modifications indicated therein, by means of impugned order dated 25.04.2006(Annexure P-5). The orders(Annexures P-2, P-4 and P-5) were further upheld by the Financial Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 11.08.2010 (Annexure P-7). 3. Aggrieved by the impugned orders(Annexures P-2, P-4, P-5 and P-7) of the authorities below, the petitioners preferred the present civil writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. 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. 5. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the petitioners have to cover a long distance to reach their fields through the passage provided in the partition proceedings, so, the authorities below have committed a legal mistake, in ignoring their objections, in this respect, sans merit. 6. As is evident from the record that, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade has prepared the partition proceedings, squarely in consonance with the Mode of Partition. Even the petitioners have conceded before the Financial Commissioner in order(Annexure P-7) that except for the passage, all the remaining issues between the parties stand sorted out. Above all, the perusal of the record, would reveal that the passage has been provided to the petitioners, connecting their fields. It is not a matter of dispute that some land of Gurdial Singh-respondent No.5 is situated opposite to Khasra Nos.1829 and 1830 towards Northern side, which the petitioners did not intentionally depict in the site plan. If the passage is provided to the petitioners as claimed through Khasra Nos.1829 and 1830, then it will bifurcate and divide into two parts('taks') the land of respondent No.5. On the contrary, a proper passage denominated by letters “ADEF” has already been provided to connect the land of the petitioners through Western side of Khasra Civil Writ Petition No.19686 of 2011 3 Nos.1830 and 1831, shown in the site plan. Moreover, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade has rightly partitioned the land between the parties, after following the due procedure and the partition was further approved by the Collector, as per impugned order(Annexure P-4) and by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala(Revisional Authority), through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P-5), respectively. Their orders were further upheld by the Financial Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 11.08.2010(Annexure P-7), which in substance is as under:- “I have gone through the record of the case. As mentioned by the parties, all issues except the passage to the field of the petitioners stand sorted out between them. During partition proceedings, a passage has to be provided to the fields of all the co-sharers. It is always not possible to provide specific passage as asked for by the co-sharers. As per map placed on the file, a proper passage has been provided to the petitioner for reaching his fields. In case the passage asked for by the petitioner is given to the petitioner then it will unnecessarily divide the fields of the respondent in two parts. The insistence on the part of the petitioner that he be given passage up to the tubewell is not logical as during the partition proceedings passage has to be provided in such a way that he is able to approach his fields conveniently, which has been done in the instant case. I do not find any merits in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned orders are illegal and would invite any interference by this Court in this relevant behalf. 8. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, to assail the impugned orders(Annexures P-2, P-4, P-5 and P-7). All the remaining celebrated contentions, now sought to be urged on their behalf, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the authorities below. 9. Meaning thereby, the authorities have recorded the cogent grounds Civil Writ Petition No.19686 of 2011 4 in this context. Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are 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 orders are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. October 19, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE