IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.468 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 26.07.2011 Amin Chand …..Appellant versus The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No.1264 of 2011 In view of reasons mentioned in this application, which is accompanied by an affidavit, it is allowed and 6 days delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.468 of 2011 This appeal has been filed against an order dated 20.9.2010, vide which, the learned Single Judge dismissed CWP No.16941 of 2010 filed by the appellant. In that writ petition, the appellant had laid challenge to the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner upsetting Mode of Partition framed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Record reveals that the land of the appellant and private respondents falls in three separate khewats bearing Nos.26, 27 and 28. A common mode of partition was framed for the land falling in all the three khewats. In appeal, the Commissioner reversed an order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and ordered that separate mode of partition be LPA No.468 of 2011(O&M) framed for the land falling in all the three khewats. Financial Commissioner affirmed that order. When writ petition was dismissed on 20.9.2010, it was observed as under:- “A fundamental principle that governs partition of joint land is that where different khewats are owned by different co- sharers a common mode of partition cannot be prepared. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, therefore, rightly set aside the common mode of partition prepared for khewat nos.26, 27 and 28, which are owned by different sets of co-sharers. However, it appears that the co-sharers in khewat no.27 and 28 are the same. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, may while preparing a fresh mode of partition, consider whether a common mode of partition can be prepared with respect to khewat no.27 and 28. “ We feel that order passed is perfectly justified. We have looked into the revenue record, which clearly depicts that so far as Khewat No.26 is concerned, co-sharers are not the same, whereas co-sharers in the land falling in khewat Nos.27 and 28 are the same. In view of above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 26.07.2011 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 2