JUDGMENT

Augustine George Masih, J.

In this intra-Court appeal, judgment dated 03.07.2012 of the learned Single Judge stands assailed, whereby a writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the orders passed by the revenue authorities declining to interfere in the order dated 01.05.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade ordering partition of the land, stands dismissed.

2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the contentions as have been raised in the writ petition relating to the partition, which has been carried out violating the mode of partition as had been finalized between the parties. He asserts that respondent No.5-Ujjagar Singh son of Angad Singh had sold specific khasra numbers to respondent No.6-Smt. Krishna Kumari, his wife, which is not permissible, especially when it was a joint property held by all co-sharers and each co-sharer is owner of each inch of land. The entire land allotted to private respondents No.5 and 6 is on the metalled road. Further the land which has been allotted to the appellant is in four separate blocks, whereas to the above said private respondents, the same is in only two blocks. Reference has also been made to the documents on record, especially the map to substantiate his contention. It is on this basis the counsel has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge as also that of the revenue authorities.

3. Counsel for contesting respondents No.5 and 6, on the other hand, has defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the revenue authorities by asserting that the land, which is a subject matter of partition, is as a matter of fact, in five separate scattered parcels. Her assertion is that the appellant has also sold land in Khasra No.32//8 along with Waryam Singh and thus, it cannot be said that it is respondent No.5, who has alone sold the land. The mode of partition has not been challenged and, therefore, the same had to be given effect to, where it was laid down that the possession of the land would be taken into consideration. Counsel has further pointed out from Annexure P-5 that the land, which has been allotted to the appellant, also abuts the road and proportionate land has been allotted to him. Neither the mode which was settled between the parties on 16.12.2005 has been violated nor has any disadvantage been suffered by the appellant. The findings as recorded by the authorities below, therefore, do not call for any interference. She asserts that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

4. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the pleadings as also the annexures attached thereto.

5. The facts are not in dispute i.e. Babu Ram had filed an application dated 13.11.2002 seeking partition of the land. The subject matter of the present appeal is the land measuring 120 kanals and 5 marlas situated in Village Bhaini Mian Khan, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Gurdaspur, after following the procedure as prescribed, proceeded to sanction the mode of partition on 07.04.2005 of land measuring 77 kanals and 13 marlas of Khewat No.264 and thereafter with the consent of the parties, fresh mode of partition was prepared on 16.12.2005 comprising of the total land in question i.e. 120 kanals and 5 marlas. No challenge was posed to this mode of partition dated 16.12.2005 and the same attained finality.

6. Order of partition was passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Gurdaspur, on 01.05.2006, which was challenged by the appellant