IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.539 OF 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:08.1.2010 Telu -----Appellant Vs. Financial Commissioner (Cooperation) and another -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.S.Kang, advocate for respondent No.2. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been filed against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against order of Financial Commissioner dated 23.12.2008, Annexure P.15, remanding the matter for a fresh decision by the original authority dealing with the proceedings. 2. The contesting respondent Sham Singh filed a petition under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue LPA No.539 of 2009 (O&M) Act, 1887 (for short, ‘the Act’) for partition of agricultural land which was opposed by the appellant. After disregarding the objection of the appellant, mode of partition was prepared. Respondent Sham Singh was aggrieved and took further remedies and finally approached the Financial Commissioner under Section 16 of the Act. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated 23.12.2008, Annexure P.15 held that the order of partition did not make mention about the other land owned by co- sharers which necessitated remand of the matter. The appellant filed a writ petition against the said order and mainly submitted that respondent Sham Singh having not challenged the mode of partition could not maintain a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner as he could not object to the final paper of partition. It was also submitted that Sham Singh could not be allowed to withdraw from partition proceedings at this stage. 3. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the concerned authority will consider the objection of the appellant against 2 LPA No.539 of 2009 (O&M) application for withdrawal from proceedings by Sham Singh. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since no objection to mode of partition was raised, the respondent Sham Singh could not raise any objection at later stage nor he could withdraw from proceedings at that stage. Reliance has been placed on judgment of learned Single Bench of this Court in Jaswant Singh v. The Financial Commissioner Appeals II Punjab at Chandigarh, 2003(3) RCR (Civil) 145, para 21, to submit that withdrawal from partition proceedings was not permissible after final paper of partition had been prepared. 6. We are of the view that no interference is called for with the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has left the contention of the appellant to oppose prayer for withdrawal from partition open to be considered by the concerned authority. The grievances of the appellant could be dealt with by the concerned statutory authority in accordance with law. 3 LPA No.539 of 2009 (O&M) 7. Having regard to the fact that partition proceedings have been pending for the last about five years, we direct that the proceedings be finalized and concluded, as far as possible, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The appeal is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge January 08, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 4