MUNSHI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUNSHI, Hukami and Manohar, Petitioners, are brothers inter se and first cousins of Bhup Singh and Jai Bhagwan, respondents No. 5 and 6. Respondents No. 5 and 6 filed an application for partition of joint holdings of land against the petitioners before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rohtak. Both the parties agreed that their respective possession of the land should be respected while drafting the mode of partition. The Assistant Collector proposed the mode of partition on July 18, 1978 and approved the same vide order dated August 4, 1978. It is admitted case that the petitioners did not avail the right of appeal against the proposed mode of partition under Section 118 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), but simply raised written objections against the order dated August 4, 1978, which were dismissed by the Assistant Collector while passing the final order dated November 6, 1978 (Annexure 'p-l ). Against that order , the petitioners went in appeal before the Collector, which were dismissed vide order dated December 28, 1978 (Annexure 'p-2' ). Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Commissioner by filing a revision petition, which was accepted by the Commissioner vide order dated September 21, 1979 (Annexure 'p-3' ). The Commissioner made a reference to the Financial Commissioner for setting aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and Collector and determining the fresh mode of partition on the basis of respective possession of the land of the parties. The Financial Commissioner, however, vide order dated February 8, 1980 (Annexure 'p-4') declined the said reference.

(2.) UNDER these circumstances, the petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution through this writ petition inter-alia alleging that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, while passing the final order of partition, had not taken into consideration the written objections of the petitioners regarding the mode of partition.

(3.) THE private respondents had only resisted this writ petition by filing reply inter-alia contending that none of the parties was in possession of the land forming part of Shamlat Deh and that the petitioners having not challenged the proposed mode of partition or the approved mode of partition under Section 118 of the Act, the Assistant Collector had rightly dismissed their objections while passing the final order of partition.