The court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to examining legal infirmities in the proceedings and does not extend to the examination of findings of fact.

Rajive Bhalla, J.

1. This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 7419 and 7420 of 2005, as common question of fact and law are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts have been extracted from C.W.P. No. 7419 of 2005.

2. The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 18.10.2002 (Annexure P-10), dated 18.4.2003 (Annexure P-12), dated 24.11.2004 (Annexure P-156), passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Rohtak, the Collector/D.R.O. Rohtak and the Commissioner, Rohtak Division Rohtak and Sanad Takseem, dated 26.6.2003 (Annexure P-24).

3. The petitioner, along with Umed Singh and others, filed an application for partition of land bearing Khewat Nos. 715/645 and 716/646, measuring 1035 kanals and 11 marlas, situated in village Bahu Akbarpur, Tehsil and District Rohtak. Respondent Nos. 5 to 23, filed a reply, accepting the mode of partition but pleaded that possession be disturbed only where necessary. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, after a spot inspection, and a consideration of the objections, framed the mode of partition.

4. No appeal was preferred against the mode of partition by any of the parties, though they claimed to have filed objections to the spot inspection, which, as per the averments in the writ petition, were rejected, while sanctioning the mode of partition. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Rohtak, thereafter, directed the field staff to prepare "Naksha Kha". The petitioner preferred objections against the "Naksha Kha", pursuant whereto the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rohtak, while amending the "Naksha Kha", provided a water course and a passage to each block vide order dated 18.10.2002 (Annexure P-10).

5. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Rohtak impugning the aforementioned order. Vide order dated 18.4.2003 (Annexure P-12), the Collector, after inspecting the land and examining the matter in detail, dismissed the appeal.

6. A revision, filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, was dismissed, vide order dated 24.11.2004 (Annexure P-15), on the ground that as the Sanad Takseem had been drawn up, partition proceedings stood concluded and, therefore, revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to entertain any further proceedings. The order of the Commission was challenged, by way of revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 9.2.2005 (Annexure P-16), with liberty to seek legal remedy regarding the orders, passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade Rohtak. The petitioner has now preferred the present writ petition.

7. Counsel for the petitioner contends that as the Sanad Takseem had attained finality, the Commissioner rightly declined to interfere in the matter. However, as the Punjab Land Revenue Act does not provide any appeal or revision, against a final order of partition, the petitioner is well within his rights to impugn the proceedings for partition by filing a writ petition. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported as Raja Ram alias Rajender and Anr. V/s. Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Hisar and Ors., 2001 1 PLJ 1.

It is further contended that the orders dated 18.10.2002 (Annexure P-10), 18.4.2003 (Annexure P-12), 24.11.2004 (Annexure P-15), are illegal and void, as no spot inspection was carried out by either officer. In support thereof, the petitioner has placed on record an affidavit of one Mahabir son of Ruldu Ram, the alleged independent witness to the spot inspection, who has deposed that no spot inspection was carried out in his presence and his signatures were obtained, in support of the spot inspection, similarly by one Samera son of Deepu by deception. It is further alleged that pursuant to the partition proceedings, the possession have not been exchanged and in support thereof affidavits of Raghbir Lambardar, Prem Singh and