JUDGMENT

Mr. Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

This is a civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 16.12.1993, 12.05.1994, 06.09.1994 and 16.02.1999 (Annexures P-2 to P-5).

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, respondents No.2 and 3 had filed an application for partition of land measuring 118 kanals 6 marlas situated in village Chak Chhapriwala, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fazilka and the said application was contested by the petitioners who had filed objections stating therein that the question of title was involved in the partition proceedings as the petitioners had exchanged their land with respondents No.2 and 3 about 30 years back and respondents No.2 and 3 had given their share of land i.e. 13 kanals 10 marlas in village Chak Chhapriwala to the petitioners and no land was then left with them in the said village and the said question of title was required to be determined as in case the said question of title was decided in favour of the petitioners, then no cause would survive with respondents No.2 and 3 to file an application for partition and the said application for partition was required to be dismissed. It is further argued that vide order dated 16.09.1985, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fazilka without assigning any reason and without passing a speaking order rejected the said objections and the petitioners pursued their remedy and ultimately the matter was taken up before the learned Financial Commissioner. On a revision petition filed by the petitioners along with other co-sharers under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the Financial Commissioner, the learned Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 15.07.1993 (Annexure P-1) had taken into consideration the fact that the petitioners had filed the civil suit and had won the matter in appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur and a judgement and decree dated 04.08.1989 had been passed in favour of the petitioners and the suit of the petitioners with respect to the exchange of land had been decreed. The learned Financial Commissioner had also taken note of the mutation No.790 dated 20.09.1989 which gave effect to the decree in the revenue record and accordingly, accepted the revision petition and remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fazilka with a direction to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fazilka to satisfy itself as to whether an appeal has been filed against the decree dated 04.08.1989 and in case the said decree had attained finality, then Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fazilka was directed to dismiss the application for partition.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that thereafter RSA-2565-1989 was filed against the said judgement and decree dated 04.08.1989 and though no stay was granted but the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fazilka, vide order dated 16.12.1993 neither dismissed the application for partition, nor adjourned it sine die and rather ordered for the proceedings to continue. The petition challenging the order dated 16.12.1993 filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Collector, vide order dated 12.05.1994 and the Collector had also noted that since RSA No.2565-1989 was pending, thus, the partition proceedings were required to continue. The revision petition filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner and further the revision petition filed before the Financial Commissioner was al