The court upheld the validity of partition proceedings, confirming adherence to legal principles and due process, dismissing petitions challenging the partition as meritless.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

This order shall dispose of above mentioned two writ petitions arising out of the same partition proceedings.

2. Present writ petitions have been filed for setting aside the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Annexure P-9) and for setting aside the order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the learned AC, 1st Grade (Annexure P-6) vide which, the partition application has been allowed and further for setting aside the order dated 22.08.2019 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector and for setting aside the order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the learned Commissioner (Annexure P-8) along with all other consequential proceedings arising out of the partition application made by respondent No.1 whereby the land has been partitioned against the law without following the settled principles of law against the statute and without following due process of law. Further prayer has been made for staying the dispossession of the petitioner from the land in dispute and for staying the operation and execution of impugned order of partition and Sanad Takseem, if any issued, whereby land has been partitioned.

3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 i.e. Balwinder Singh filed two applications for partition of the land situated in village Sabour, Tehsil Sri. Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar. He has submitted that joint statement was made by the petitioner along with his daughter-in-law to the effect that the land has already been partitioned and writing was also executed to that effect. He has submitted that after the family partition, the petitioner had invested the huge amount in order to develop the land and also installed the sprinkler system. He has submitted that the learned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade carried out the partition by disturbing the possession and thus, the partition was carried out in violation of the mode of partition. He submits that the same was challenged by the petitioner and the Appellate Authority remanded the same with a direction to look into the objections filed by the petitioner. He submits that on remand, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade arbitrarily finalized the partition proceedings. He submits that the appeal and the revision had also been illegally dismissed. He further submits that respondent No.2, namely, Balwinder Singh had filed the applications for partition of the land by not including the whole land and thus, some of the Khasra numbers were left out. Besides this, the petition for the partition was filed against the dead person. However, the authorities below failed to appreciate the same and thus, the partition proceedings were carried out in violation of the settled law. He submits that as per the mode of partition, the partition proceedings were to be carried out by not disturbing the possession. Besides this, the partition of the land of the parties would be done according to bad out of bad land and good out of good land but the same had been violated. He submits that the objections raised by the petitioner were overlooked by the authorities. He has submitted that the petitioner had specifically submitted that the partition be done by keeping the possession intact and motors be kept in kurrahs of the parties, who had installed the same. He submits that the land was partitioned by way of family partition dated 20.04.1982 but the authorities failed to appreciate the same and thus, the impugned orders were passed in violation of the mode of partition and the law settled.

4. Learned counsel for the caveator however has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that no violation whatsoever of the mode of partition or settled principles of law had been committed in this case. He has submitted that the petitioner joined the partition proceedings since beginning and was provided complete opportunity of submitting his objections. He s