IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.23311 of 2010 Date of decision : 14.10.2011 Bhagwan Kaur and others ....Petitioners Versus Financial Commissioner and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.R.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 31.10.2007, 30.5.2001, 23.2.2002 and 16.11.1999. The petitioners and respondent No.5 were co-sharers in a piece of land. The parties are related. Partition proceedings had been initiated where Naksha Arra had been prepared. The grievance of the petitioners is that they had raised objections at the outset which were not dealt with by the respective authorities and this has prejudiced their case as the partition had already been reflected in oral partition and pursuant thereto they were in settled possession of their respective shares. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the orders reflect non-application of mind and since the C.W.P.No.23311 of 2010 -2- objections have not been decided and the fact of oral partition not taken into consideration, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. A perusal of the orders, however, reveals a different story. Even though it appears that some objections were filed but they were not pursued by the petitioners as they failed to turn up in spite of repeated opportunities given to them by the learned court which was seized of the partition proceedings in the first instance. The plea of oral partition raised was sans any supportive material. No such material was produced right upto the level of Financial Commissioner and in view of this the plea of the petitioners cannot be appreciated. This Court does not find any infirmity having been committed by the competent authorities while dealing with the case of the petitioners. That apart, the order of the Financial Commissioner is of the year 2007 and the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked after a lapse of 4 years without there being any cogent explanation for the delay. The petition stands dismissed. 14.10.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss