CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7022 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 08, 2009 Karnail Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab, Chandigarh etc. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Reference is made to two writ petitions No.5960 of 1986 and 5115 of 1984, which were filed by the petitioner and respondents herein, respectively against the orders passed in the partition proceedings. Both the writ petitions have been decided by a common order on 20.4.2009. Writ Petition No.5115 of 1984 has been allowed. The order under challenge in the writ petition was where an application for partition given by the petitioner under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”) was entertained and allowed. Plea was that such application for partition would not be CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7022 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: maintainable under Section 42 of the Act. In the meantime, the partition of this land was effected which was challenged by the petitioner through Civil Writ Petition No.5960 of 1986, referred to above. This writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the Sanad Takseem in this case had already been issued and the possession on the basis of the same has already been given to the respective parties. While dismissing the said writ petition, It was observed by this court that there is no justification otherwise made out to interfere in the order of partition. The operative part of the said order is reproduced below:- “The partitioning of the land as per the valuation can very well be done under the provisions of the Revenue Act and indeed this partition, as already noticed, was so ordered. This is impugned in Writ Petition 5960 of 1986 by the respondent herein. The Sanad Takseem in this case has already been issued and the possession on the basis thereof has also been given to the respective parties. There is no justification otherwise made out to interfere in the order of partition. The counsel for the respondents could not point out any defect in this partition, which would call for interference therein.” The petitioner has now filed this writ petition to challenge the orders dated 7.1.1992, 23.11.1998 and 10.1.2008, Annexures P- 7, P-8 and P-9, passed by Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner. Collector has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that kind of land is equal and the land has been allotted to the parties according to their shares. Thus, primarily CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7022 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: the challenge was to the partition only. Annexure P-8 is the order passed by the Commissioner against the appellate order passed by the Collector, whereby the revision had been dismissed finding no merit therein. Financial Commissioner had also declined to interfere by observing that total land was of the same quality and there is no cause of grievance for any party. The challenge in the present writ petition accordingly is to the partition in which the petitioner had remained unsuccessful. While this court was dealing with Writ Petition No.5960 of 1986, the petitioner did not point out that subsequent thereto, certain orders were passed by Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner. The petitioner, thus, cannot be heard now to challenge these orders, once this court has already found that there is no cause to interfere in the partition which had been finalised during the pendency of those writ petitions. The present writ petition accordingly is dismissed. May 08, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE