BHAJAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dtd. 6/9/2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab - respondent No.1, order dtd. 12/2/2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala - respondent No.2, upholding the orders passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Payal, dtd. 3/5/2010 and 11/8/2010 (Annexures P-4 and P-5 respectively), whereby, mode of partition by disturbing the possession of parties was proposed and subsequently, finalized. A mandamus is also sought for directing the official respondents to carry out the partition proceedings in view of the final order of mode of partition dtd. 16/1/1996 (Annexure P-6), which has been upheld upto the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whereby, possession of the parties was ordered to be kept intact.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially, an application for partition was preferred by Gurdeep Singh, father of Balwinder Singh - respondent No.5, before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade in the year 1993. The mode of partition was prepared by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Payal, vide order dtd. 16/1/1996 (Annexure P-6), according to which, possession of the parties was to be kept intact. The said order has attained finality. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, while deciding the grievance as highlighted by Gurdeep Singh, father of respondent No.5 - Balwinder Singh, the then applicant, passed an order dtd. 26/4/1999 (Annexure P-7) by disturbing the possession, against which, an appeal was preferred by Surjeet Singh - respondent No.8 (proforma respondent herein), which was dismissed by the Collector vide order dtd. 27/4/2000 (Annexure P-8) leading to the filing of revision petition before the Additional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, who remanded the case back to the Collector, Payal, for fresh decision on the matter vide order dtd. 12/7/2001 (Annexure P-9). In compliance with the said order, Collector Payal, decided the appeal of Surjeet Singh afresh by allowing the same vide order dtd. 7/5/2002 (Annexure P-10) by holding that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was required to finalize the partition proceedings as per the approved mode of partition and the subsequent order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, disturbing the possession. Gurdeep Singh, father of respondent No.5 - Balwinder Singh filed an appeal against the order dtd. 7/5/2002 (Annexure P-10) before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, who accepted the appeal vide order dtd. 25/3/2003 (Annexure P-11) leading to the filing of revision petition by Surjeet Singh before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, who accepted the revision petition vide order dtd. 20/9/2005 (Annexure P-12) setting aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, dtd. 25/3/2003 (Annexure P-11) and upholding the order of Collector, Payal, dtd. 7/5/2002 (Annexure P-10).

(3.) He submits that at this stage, Gurdeep Singh, father of respondent No.5 - Balwinder Singh moved an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Payal, withdrawing his application for partition, which prayer was accepted and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Payal, vide order dtd. 23/1/2007 (Annexure P-13) permitted withdrawal of the application without any notice to the opposite parties including the petitioner. When the petitioner came to know about the withdrawal of the application for partition, he moved an application under Sec. 118 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, to continue the partition proceedings, in which, mode of partition had been finalized earlier upto the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, vide order dtd. 20/9/2005 (Annexure P-12). The said application was not entertained by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade.