RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.

The petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.10.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, upholding the order dated 10.4.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector Sonepat and the order dated 2.12.2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ganaur, alleging that impugned orders have been passed in glaring violation of the mode of partition dated 7.7.2003 (Annexure P-7).

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, vide their application dated 7.8.1996, sought partition of land measuring 161 kanals 10 marlas, amongst its co-sharers. After hearing both the parties, mode of partition was proposed vide order dated 8.11.2001 (Annexure P-6), inviting objections from the parties. Objections were heard and finally, the mode of partition was amended vide order dated 7.7.2003 (Annexure P-7). Pursuant to the amended mode of partition dated 7.7.2003, Assistant Collector 1st Grade, sought naksha kha. The petitioners filed their objections dated 19.9.2003 (Annexure P-8) to the naksha kha. However, Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ganaur, vide his order dated 2.12.2003 (Annexure P-1), accepted the naksha Kha by rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners. Dissatisfied, petitioners filed their appeal vide Annexure P-2, which came to be dismissed by the Collector, Ganaur, vide order dated 10.4.2006 (Annexure P-3). This order was challenged by the petitioners by way of revision petition before the Commissioner-respondent No.1. Revision of the petitioners also met the same fate and it was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 8.10.2009 (Annexure P-5).

Feeling aggrieved against the above said impugned orders, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned orders.

Notice of motion was issued, vide order dated 10.12.2009, and in the meantime, status quo with regard to the existing position was ordered to be maintained.

A joint written statement on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, was filed. However, learned counsel for the private respondents did not choose to file separate written statement and vide his statement made on 25.5.2011, he adopted the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the respondent revenue authorities have failed to apply their mind judiciously, thereby glaringly violating the amended mode of partition dated 7.7.2003 (Annexure P-7). He further submits that neither the quality of the land has been kept in mind, nor the co-sharers have been allotted their shares in a consolidated manner, although it was a specific term in the amended mode of partition. The practical difficulty in cultivating the land has also been altogether ignored, again violating the amended mode of partition. He next contended that the shares of 3/4 khewats have been allotted land at as many as seven places, thereby creating a genuine and practical problem for the shareholders to put their respective land to its optimum use. The very object of specific and agreed clause in the mode of partition to the effect that the area of every co-sharers will be allotted in a consolidated manner, has been defeated. He finally prays for setting aside the impugned orders and for acceptance of the writ petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the respondent revenue authorities did not commit any error of law, while passing the impugned orders and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. Supporting the contentions of learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners, while passing the impugned orders. He further submits that the co-sharers have been allotted their due shares, keeping their respective possession intact on their tubewells dug by the