An applicant for partition can only be permitted to withdraw from the partition proceedings when he is dissatisfied with the order passed by the Revenue Officer pertaining to the determination of the questions referred in sub-section (1) or with the order of appeal passed under sub-section (2) against the order passed under sub-section (1). The court also found that the Financial Commissioner had wrongly interfered in the orders passed by the revenue authorities below and set aside the order for de-novo partition.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.10.1997 (Annexure P-16) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, vide which she set aside the orders dated 1.10.1991 (Annexure P-11) and 23.6.1992 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Collector, Rajpura and the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, respectively and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rajpura for finalising the partition proceedings de-novo as per the directions given in the said order.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Jeet Singh and others (respondents No. 19 of 23) filed an application on 14.1.1988 under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for partition of the land measuring 25 bighas 10 biswas situated in Village Akbarpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, claiming themselves to be co- sharers in the said land. It was averred by them that due to joint holding the applicants (the aforesaid respondents) were unable to cultivate their land properly, therefore, partition of the land was necessary. Upon the said application, notices were issued to the other co-sharers and interested parties. Jaswant Singh and others (petitioners herein) filed objections to the aforesaid partition application by pleading that the private partition of the land had already taken place, therefore, the question of title is involved and the partition proceedings initiated by the aforesaid respondents cannot be proceeded with, but those objections were over-ruled by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide his order dated 8.7.1988. The appeal filed by the petitioners herein against the said order was allowed by the Collector on 31.7.1989 and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade with the directions to consider their claim regarding private partition. Thereafter on 21.2.1990, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade again came to the same conclusion that there was no private between the parties. Therefore, the objections raised by the present petitioners to the partition proceedings were dismissed. Thereafter, on 22.5.1990, the order of mode of partition (Annexure P-4) was passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. According to the said mode of partition, the total area which was to be partitioned amongst the co- sharers was only 25 bighas 10 biswas. The partition was to be effected while keeping in view the possession of the respective parties and their adjustment was to be made as per their share. The latest jamabandi was to be treated as base for the partition. Two karams passage was to be provided to each Tak. If any joint land had been leased out or mortgaged by a co-sharer, the same was to be put in his share. Every party/co-sharer was satisfied to the aforesaid mode of partition. None of the parties, including respondents No. 19 to 23, filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of mode of partition.

3. Thereafter, the next step for partition was taken i.e. the Assistant Collector Ist Grade asked the Patwari to get the shares of the joint owners separated by preparing a map according to aforesaid mode of partition, which is popularly called as Naksha Be. The said Naksha Be was prepared and submitted by the Patwari to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 25.6.1990. Thereafter, the objections from any aggrieved party were invited against the aforesaid Naksha Be. Respondents No. 19 to 23 filed objections to the same. Their objection was that the passage/pahi was not being properly given in the said Naksha Be. It was also objected that in spite of the fact that Khasra No. 312 was in their possession and they have planted fruit trees thereon, it was not given to them. It was further objected by the aforesaid respondents that their Tak was not separated and the pahi was given to them in the low lying area. These objections were duly considered by the Assistant Collec