A partition order passed by the Assistant Collector is legal and valid if the parties have not raised any objections to the partition papers.

1. The dispute between the two brothers (the petitioner and respondent No. 4) is over a trifle. It relates to the partition of a piece of land. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Assistant Collector Grade I, the Collector and even the Financial Commissioner. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and challenged the findings recorded by the revenue authorities. A few facts may be noticed.

2. On an application for partition of the land measuring about 53 Kanals, the Assistant Collector sanctioned the mode of partition and sent the papers to the Girdawar for preparation of the necessary documents. The petitioner and the respondent were given opportunity to file objections. None were filed. Vide order dated 10/01/1989 (a copy of the order is at Annexure P-2), the Assistant Collector recorded that the parties have stated that they have verified the papers to be correct and requested for acceptance of the same. So in the absence of any objection, the partition is accepted. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector. It was rejected vide order dated 12/06/1989 a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. He filed a revision petition before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The Commissioner made a recommendation to the Financial Commissioner for acceptance of the revision petition. However, vide order dated 15/04/1991, the Financial Commissioner held that "the petitioner will get 1 Karam more out of Khasra No. 927 than the area ordered by A.C. Ist". With this modification, the revision petition was declined. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The orders passed by the various revenue authorities have been challenged as being in violation of the accepted mode of partition and the agreement arrived at between the parties.

3. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 certain preliminary objections have been raised. The averments made in the petition have been controverted and it has been stated that the order is in strict conformity with the agreement and the settled mode of partition.

4. I have heard Mr. Ashwani Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. L. Sarin, has argued the case on behalf of respondent No. 4.

5. It deserves notice at the outset that Mr. M. L. Sarin made an unequivocal offer at the outset that if the petitioner was not satisfied with the piece of land which has fallen to his share, he may exchange it with that of the respondent. This offer was not accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this situation, it is reasonable to assume that the land of the petitioner is in no way less or inferior to that of the respondent.

6. Irrespective of the above, it appears that even on merits, the petitioner has no cause for grievance which may be remediable by resort to the present proceedings. The primary argument urged by the learned primary argument urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade was not in conformity with the settled mode of partition or the agreement pleaded by respondent No. 4. He has further submitted that even the orders passed by the higher authorities suffer from the same infirmity.

7. The contention raised by the learned counsel cannot be accepted. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade has categorically observed in his order that no objection had been raised by any of, the parties to the partition papers as prepared by the field staff. Even though, this observation has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, yet nothing has been produced on record to show that any objection had in fact been raised. In fact, if any objection had been raised, the petitioner would have filed a copy thereof along with the writ petition. None has been filed. Still further, in the written stateme