PUNJAB SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PUNJAB Singh and others have filed the present writ petition against the respondents under Articles 226/27 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari/mandamus or any other directions to the respondents to the effect that the orders Annexures P-6, P-8, P-9 of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Radaur, Commissioner, Ambala Division; and Financial Commissioner, Haryana, respectively, be declared as illegal, unlawful, null and void ab initio, being contrary to law and be quashed. Directions have also been sought to the effect that in the mode of partition prepared by respondent No. 4 a clause be inserted that agricultural land measuring 84 Kanals 8 Marlas comprised in two plots 'A' and 'B', as shown in Annexure P-3, be partitioned as per their shares, keeping in view the market value, situation, nature, and by taking into consideration the merits and demerits of the plots by ignoring the possession of one party or the other on any Khasra number and the case set up by the petitioners is that they are the owners collectively to the extent of one-half share in the land measuring 84 kanals 8 Marlas and the remaining half share belongs to respondents Nos. 5 to 8, as shown in Annexure P-3, Aks Sazra.

(2.) IN brief of the case set up by the petitioners is that the mode of partition done by the revenue authorities vide Annexures P-6, P-8 and P-9 is illegal because unequitable distribution of the land has been made, which is not in accordance with the provisions of Sections 116 and 118 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The revenue authorities wrongly took into consideration that the factum of possession alone would be the determining factor for the purpose of partition of the land. Rather the value of the land, its location, utility should have been the guiding factors for determining the mode of partition.

(3.) ON merits stand taken by the said respondents is that the plots 'A' and 'B', shown in Annexure P-3, adjoin to the village Abadi. The petitioners themselves selected the land of their own choice, and the parties are in settled possession for the last more than 20 years and it would be unjust to unsettle the possession of the parties at this stage. The revenue authorities rightly came to the conclusion by recording a firm finding of fact that both the plots are situated near the village Abadi having the same value. It has also been pleaded that the tubewells of the petitioners as well as of the answering respondents are in existence on the land. They have also constructed Gher and houses even earlier to the filing of the partition application. The value of the land recorded in the consolidation proceedings have no relevance to decide the present controversy.