IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 14908 of 2007 Date of Decision: December 05, 2011 Bhartha and others. …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Ms. Manisha Gandhi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. D.D. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 6 to 8. Paramjeet Singh, J. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of order dated 03.10.2003 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Israna, whereby application filed by the petitioners raising question of title has been declined in the partition proceedings and also for quashing of order dated 25.02.2004 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Collector, order dated 09.11.2005 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Commissioner and order dated 09.05.2007 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Financial Commissioner, whereby appeal, revision, second revision respectively, filed by petitioners have been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the private respondents filed an application for partition of land situated in the revenue CWP No.14908 of 2007 limits of Village Ahar, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat. On notice, the petitioners appeared and proceedings continued. The mode of partition was sanctioned. Thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioners raising question of title on the basis of oral partition. The said application has been declined by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide order dated 03.10.2003 (Annexure P/2). It was held by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade that there is no proof of mutual partition and for want of lack of proof of any oral partition, the application was dismissed. It was also held by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade that no question of title arose at that stage as the application for question of title was filed after sanctioning of mode of partition. Aggrieved against the order (Annexure P/2), the petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed on 25.02.2004 (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, revision petition and second revision petition preferred before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner were also dismissed on 09.11.2005 and 09.05.2007 (Annexure P/4 and P/5 respectively). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admitted facts on record are that at the time of filing of written statement to the application for partition, the petitioners did not raise question of title. After consideration of the application of partition, Naksha Urra was called. Thereafter, mode of partition was also approved. After that, an application raising question of title had been filed on the basis of alleged oral partition. 2 CWP No.14908 of 2007 Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there was an oral partition with mutual consent of the parties and the parties are in respective possession of their shares of land, so, the question of title is involved. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not sustainable. Firstly, the petitioners did not raise question of title at the initial stage. Secondly, the alleged oral partition had never been reflected in the revenue record. There is also no iota of evidence to prove that there was any oral partition between the parties. It is a matter of record that the petitioners had filed a civil suit wherein partition proceedings were stayed by the Civil Court on 27.02.2006, however, the said order dated 27.02.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, was set aside in appeal. This position has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments. The matter has already been decided by the Civil Court with regard to the question of title, even otherwise there is no evidence on record that the land was ever orally partitioned. In the jamabandi for the year 1966-67 (Annexure P/1), the property is still shown to be joint and in the column of possession the land has been shown as “Maqbooja Malkaan” (Possession of owners, it shows joint possession of all co-sharers). There is no other evidence to indicate that the land has ever been orally partitioned. So, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the parties are in separate cultivating possession for the last 40 years. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also not proved on record. It is a matter of 3 CWP No.14908 of 2007 common knowledge that without actually effecting partition, co- sharers start cultivating their respective shares. The partition and separate possession can only be considered valid, when the same is reflected in the revenue record. Even if there was an oral partition, the entry to that effect is required to be made in the revenue record such as roznamcha. There is no proof which may indicate that the parties had effected oral partition and had come in specific possession on that basis. As such, the mere possession of co-sharer on specific khasra numbers for a long time cannot be considered a conclusive proof that partition had been effected orally. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also rejected. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs. December 05, 2011 ( Paramjeet Singh ) vkd Judge 4