IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.740 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 02.05.2011 Balwant Singh and others …..Appellants versus State of Punjab and another ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Onkar Rai, Advocate for the appellants Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against an interim order dated 2.2.2011, vide which, an interim stay granted in favour of the appellants on 11.7.2006 was vacated. As per case of the appellants, they purchased 14 marla of land in the year 1967 in village Naloyian, tehsil and district Hoshiarpur, the area now falls in the municipal limits. It is their further case that in five marla of land, they had constructed their house and five marla of land they had sold to Sarwan Singh, who exchanged the same with respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 filed an application for partition of that land. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, vide order dated 4.9.2001, accepted application of respondent No.2 for partition. The appellants went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Collector. Revision filed by the appellants was LPA No.740 of 2011(O&M) accepted by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division on 31.3.2004. Respondent No.2 filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, which was accepted, order passed by the Commissioner was set aside and order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade was upheld, by observing as under:- “After considering the arguments advanced by counsel for both the parties and after perusal of record, I have seen that the observations of the Commissioner, that the partition was affected at the back of the respondent is not tenable. The respondent withdrew from the partition proceedings on his own. Still the respondent was within his right to make an appeal before the Collector against the partition which he availed after a period of limitation of 10 months which was dismissed as time barred by the Collector vide his order dated 29.11.2002. As per Section 112(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, Revenue Authorities cannot partition Abadi if it cause inconvenience to co-sharers or diminishes the utility thereof. In the objections filed by Balwant Singh respondent No.1 in the Court of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade on 16.8.2000, he objected to the partition on the ground that the land is Abadi Deh, but he failed to point out how the partition is causing inconvenience to him. I see no illegality or impropriety in the order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hohiarpur.” The appellants came to this Court by filing CWP No.10107 of 2006 and on 11.7.2006, following interim order was passed by this Court:- 2 LPA No.740 of 2011(O&M) “Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have constructed house on the southern side in Rect. No.13, Khasra No.18/3/2 and not on the northern side, as has been held by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade. Learned counsel has placed reliance on annexure P-5, in support of his contention. Notice of motion for September 15, 2006. Status quo with regard to possession shall be maintained in the meantime.” It is not in dispute, rather admitted before us that respondent No.2 is the owner of five marla of land out of the land in dispute. It was specific case of the appellants, as was noticed by this Court when notice of motion was issued on 11.7.2006, that the appellants had constructed their house in khasra No.18/3/2 on its southern side, whereas the Assistant Collector Ist Grade has allotted them land measuring five marla on northern side of that khasra no. When this matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 2.2.2011, a very fair stand was taken by respondent No.2 by stating that the appellants may choose five marla of land, out of the land in dispute, of their choice, may be on any side of the plot in question. We feel that the stand taken was very fair and on the basis of that statement made, the writ petition should have been disposed of, however, the writ petition was admitted on 2.2.2011 and only the interim order passed in favour of the appellants was vacated. There is no dispute that respondent No.2 is entitled to get 5 marla of land in the land falling in khasra No.18/3/2. If that is so, the appellants cannot be permitted to defeat respondent No.2’s right by taking frivolous and technical objections. This Court is not supposed to give relief 3 LPA No.740 of 2011(O&M) to such like litigant while exercising the powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Otherwise also, the appellants have failed to show as to how the partition ordered by the authorities below and the arrangement accepted by the learned Single Judge, will cause any inconvenience to them. The appellants are in possession of the entire land and they, in a very unjustifiable manner, wants to retain the same. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. The Registry is directed to put up CWP No.10107 of 2006 for regular hearing which shall be disposed of in view of the order passed by us today. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 02.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 4