BAHADUR SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dtd. 30/7/2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nawanshahr; order dtd. 18/7/2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Collector, Nawanshahr on remand, order dtd. 1/4/2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner, Roopnagar Division, Roopnagar and the order dtd. 2/2/2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the mode of partition was finalized vide order dtd. 18/12/2008 (Annexure P-9). He contends that the impugned order dtd. 30/7/2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nawanshahr, is violative of the mode of partition, which has been finalized. His contention is that the petitioners had objected to the proposed partition and after rejection of the objections of the petitioners, an appeal was filed before the Collector, Nawanshahr, which was accepted and the case was remanded back for fresh decision as it was found that there were certain cuttings in the records. In pursuance thereto, fresh partition was carried out, which was challenged by the petitioners by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, Roopnagar Division, Roopnagar, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 1/4/2016 (Annexure P-3). Faced with this situation, petitioners had preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, challenging the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nawanshahr, followed by the dismissal of the appeal by the Collector, Nawanshahr and the revision by the Commissioner, Roopnagar Division, Roopnagar, which has also been dismissed vide order dtd. 2/2/2017 (Annexure P-4) by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. He contends that the factum of the mode of partition, which is the primary document to be taken into consideration for finalization of the partition, has been ignored as a separate block was to be carved out for the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners i.e. Swaran Singh but the said aspect i.e. clause 3 of the mode of partition has been violated as the land has been given in different blocks, two blocks to the petitioners and two blocks to the widow of the brother of the petitioners because of the death of Swaran Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. He contends, apart from that, the condition with regard to clauses 1 and 4 has also not been followed in totality as the Abadi and the land in possession had to be kept in mind and the same has been disturbed. He, thus, contends that the impugned orders cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside. To substantiate his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the site plans (Annexure P-11 colly).

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and with his able assistance have gone through the records of the case and the impugned orders.