MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dtd. 10/10/2017 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed on the grounds of delay of 315 days, order dtd. 26/4/2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, order dtd. 12/9/2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector, Gurdaspur-respondent No.3 and the order dtd. 23/4/2012 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurdaspur-respondent No.4, whereby ther mode of partition has been sanctioned.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, should have considered the case of the petitioners in the revision petition preferred by them on merits instead of not entertaining the appeal and dismissing the same on the grounds of limitation alone. His further contention is that the order dtd. 26/4/2016 (Annexure P-5), which has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, also cannot sustain in the light of the fact that the Commissioner has proceeded on a wrong premise that the petitioners have not challenged the mode of partition and, therefore, they have no grievance, rather they have approached him challenging the first order dtd. 12/9/2012 (Annexure P-3). He contends that the order passed by the authorities being in violation of the mode of partition as sanctioned on 13/4/2011 (Annexure P-1) cannot sustain. His contention is that clause 2 and 3 of the mode of partition have been violated, according to which the possession was to be kept intact and minimum taks were to be formed while partition was being carried out. Referring to the map which has been produced on record, he has tried to indicate that the petitioners have been given three separate taks and similarly the private respondents also. Instead of that since the land was in two parts, only two taks each should have been so made out instead of three taks each. He, thus, contends that the mode of partition has been violated. That apart, he asserts that the passage, which has been granted, is a waste of valuable fertile land which could have been easily avoided by providing alternative passages, firstly by consolidating the taks and by providing a shorter passage to the parties. He, thus, contends that the orders as passed by the authorities below and impugned in the writ petition cannot sustain.

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