AMAR SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the respondent at the very outset has argued that Sanad Partition has been issued and that possession of the land has already been delivered to the parties in partition proceedings. He has cited Banta Singh v. Financial Commissioner Punjab and others,1995 2 LLR 23. This Court might have dismissed the writ petition on the short ground that possession has already been taken by the co-sharers. However, the case will have to be remanded to the Collector, Rajpura, as it has remained undisputed before us that no notice was issued to the petitioner at the time of changing the mode of partition by the Collector. The case cited by the learned counsel for the respondents does not help him because it was not the case of the parties in Banta Singh's case that a party was not issued notice at the time of change of mode of partition. It is well settled law that once mode of partition becomes final in the presence of the parties, the same cannot be changed until and unless notice is issued to the affected party. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. Orders Annexures P-2 and P4 are quashed. The Collector, Rajpura, is directed to redecide the matter afresh in the presence of the parties.