C.W.P.No.22194 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.22194 of 2011 Date of Decision:-30.11.2011 Amar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The contour of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Raghbir Singh son of Sat Ram (respondent No.7) moved an application against his brother Amar Singh (petitioner) on 11.8.2005 for partition of their joint land in dispute, situated in village Ferozepur, Tehsil and District Panchkula. The mode of partition was accepted on 26.9.2006 in the presence of parties by the Assistant Collector (for brevity “the AC”). After inviting the objections, the Naksha Bay was prepared and accepted, in pursuance of order of mode of partition. After following the due procedure, ultimately the AC issued the final partition (Sanad Taksim) on 25.3.2008. After completing all the codal formalities, the final order of partition dated 28.4.2008 (Annexure P1) was passed by the AC. 2. Dissatisfied with the order dated 25.3.2008 of AC, the petitioner filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Collector (respondent No.3), by virtue of impugned order dated 18.12.2008 (Annexure P2). Sequelly, the revision petitions filed by him (petitioner) were also dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division (respondent No.2), by way of impugned order dated 29.5.2009 (Annexure P3) and Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1), through the medium of impugned order dated 15.10.2010 (Annexure P4). 3. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present C.W.P.No.22194 of 2011 -2- writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P2 to P4), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this regard. 5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the AC did not follow the proper procedure and partitioned the land in litigation against the mode of partition, so, the impugned orders are illegal, lacks merit. 6. As is evident from the record, that respondent No.7 moved an application on 11.8.2005 for partition of their joint land in question. The mode of partition was accepted on 26.9.2006 in the presence of the parties. The Sanad Taksim was prepared on 25.3.2008 and order of final partition was issued on 28.4.2008 (Annexure P1). The petitioner did not challenge the order of acceptance of mode of partition at any stage. Moreover, the Financial Commissioner has observed in his order (Annexure P4) that there is a joint statement dated 25.3.2008 of petitioner as well as his brothers, namely, Nar Singh, Randhir Singh & Raghbir Singh (respondent No.7), stating therein that they have no objection to the partition. The contention of learned counsel that no opportunity to file the objections was given or Naksha Bay was amended at the back of petitioner, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well, as he filed the objections on 25.3.2008 and there is no order on the file for amendment of the Naksha Bay, as urged on behalf of the petitioner. 7. Likewise, the Commissioner has also noticed in his order (Annexure P3) that petitioner has already sold all his share of land measuring 25 kanals 10 marlas to Smt.Rita Rani wife of Parveen Chaudhary, vide registered sale deed, bearing No.660 dated 31.12.2008 and delivered the possession to the vendee, in pursuance of the sale deed. Thus, he is left with no interest/right in the disputed land. C.W.P.No.22194 of 2011 -3- 8. Therefore, the Collector and the Commissioner have rightly negatived the claim of petitioner in this relevant connection. Not only that, the Financial Commissioner has duly considered the matter, by means of impugned order (Annexure P4), which, in substance, is as under:- “I have considered the arguments advanced by both the counsels and perused the record of the case. In this case the partition proceedings started before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Raipur Rani, in August, 2005. The case was transferred to Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Panchkula and was finally decided on 28.4.2008 by issuing Sanad taqseem. The petitioner challenged the same before the Collector, the Commissioner and now before this court. The main contention of the petitioner is that after transfer of the case, the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Panchkula had carried out spot inspection and ordered the amendment of Naksha 'Bay'. But the field kanoongo directly prepared Naksha 'Zim' and the petitioners were not given opportunity to file objections against the Naksha 'Bay'. But this contention is contrary to the facts on record. A perusal of record of the proceedings before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, reveals that on 15.5.2007, the objections to Naksha 'Bay' had been filed by the petitioners. Thereafter the case was transferred to Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Panchkula who carried out the spot inspection on 22.10.2007 but there is no order on file for amendment of Naksha 'Bay'. So there is no illegality or irregularities in the orders on this count. Moreover, there is a joint statement of the petitioner as well as respondents dated 25.3.2008 wherein it is stated that the parties have no objections to the partition. The other important fact in this case is that the petitioner has sold some of the land allotted to him in partition under challenge. He has also handed over the possession of this land to the purchaser. It means that he has accepted the partition and possession of the land subsequent to this partition. The repeated argument of the petitioner that he was not given opportunity to file objections against Nakhsa 'A' Naksha 'Bay' or Naksha 'Zim' is also contrary to the facts on record because of every crucial hearing before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, it is mentioned that Counsel for the petitioner and respondent are present in the court. On 25.3.2008 also presence of both the parties is marked and it is recorded that neither of the parties have any objection. The contention of the petitioner about overwriting/cutting and ante-dating in the proceedings of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade is also contrary to the C.W.P.No.22194 of 2011 -4- record. The record reveals that the case was fixed for 18.3.2008 and on 18.3.2008 it was adjourned for 25.3.2008 so there is no proof of ante-dating the proceedings. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, there is no material irregularity or illegality warranting interference in the impugned orders. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.” 9. At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned orders (Annexures P2 to P4) are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant behalf. 10. Meaning thereby, the authorities below have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant direction. Such orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P2 to P4) deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner. 12. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 30.11.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No