Locus standi is crucial in challenging partition proceedings, and subsequent purchasers after the completion of partition lack the standing to challenge the proceedings.

VIKAS BAHL, J.

This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure P-17) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh-respondent No.1 vide which the revision petition filed by the petitioners i.e., ROR no. 619 of 2018 in which the challenge was to the order dated 13.04.2010 (Annexure P-10); order dated 04.03.2010/10.03.2010 (Annexure P-9) and order dated 23.02.2010 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the sanad takseem, Naksha Irri and Naksha Arra had been prepared, was dismissed. A further prayer has been made in the writ petition for directing respondent no.2 to decide the partition application afresh by impleading the petitioners in the sanad takseem with respect to Khasra nos. 216 (8-5), 217(6-5) and 218 (6-5).

2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 22.12.2005, respondents No.3 to 5, namely, Harjinder Singh, Hardit Singh and Bhagwant Singh, had filed an application under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (for short 'the Act') for partition of the land at village Dharamkot, Tehsil and District Patiala. Total land measuring 320 bighas 17 biswas as per the jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 was the subject matter of the said partition application. The petitioners who were not the co-sharers on the date of the filing of the application were not parties in the said partition application dated 22.12.2005 (Annexure P-1 Pg 37 of the paperbook). Ajmer Singh-respondent no.6, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was respondent no. 9 in the said partition application. On 23.10.2009 (Annexure P-7), the mode of partition was prepared. Ultimately, the partition proceedings culminated with the issuance of sanad takseem/instrument of partition dated 13.04.2010 (Annexure P-10) and the rights of the co-sharers crystallized. As per the case set up by the petitioners, they had purchased land measuring 20 bighas 15 biswas from aforesaid Ajmer Singh-respondent No.6, vide registered sale deed dated 01.01.2018 (Annexure P-2). It is further the case of the petitioners, as is apparent from Para 4 of the Writ Petition, that the said Ajmer Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had filed a suit for declaration challenging the Order dated 10.03.2010 and Order dated 13.04.2010 (sanad takseem) and the said suit was dismissed. It has further been averred that, when respondent no. 4 and 5 were trying to get possession of the land then, the petitioners filed a Civil Suit bearing No.1629 of 2018 against Hardit Singh, Bhagwant Singh (who are respondents No.4 and 5 in the present petition) and Inder Moudgil, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein, from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land comprising Khewat No.1/1, Khatoni No.16, Khasra No.216 (8-5), 217 (6-5), 218 (6-5), total measuring 20 bigha 15 biswa, situated at village Dharmkot, Tehsil and District Patiala, as per jamabandi for the year 2011-2012. In the said civil suit, initially, vide order dated 23.05.2018, ex parte ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioners. The said suit had been dismissed, as has been averred in paragraph 4 of the present writ petition and as is apparent from the Order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 25.08.2022. An appeal against the said order is stated to be pending. The judgement of the said civil suit however, has not been annexed with the present petition. Even the judgement passed in the suit filed by Ajmer Singh has not been annexed with the present petition. On 23.05.2018, as is apparent from Annexure P-11 (Page 115 of the paperbook), the possession of the land in accordance with the sanad takseem was given to Harjinder Singh, Hardit Singh and Bhagwant Singh (respondents No.3 to 5 herein). Having not succeeded in the civil Court, the petitioners had filed ROR No.619 of 2018 (P-12) challenging the sanad takseem