IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-10510-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision :26.05.2025 NIRMAL SINGH …Petitioner Versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab.

HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL]

Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure P-22) and order dated 10.05.2021 (Annexure P-23) passed by the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jalandhar.

1.2 A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 27.11.2024 (Annexure P-26) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab.

2. Briefly, respondent No.3-Baljinder Singh sought partition of joint land comprised in nine different khewats by filing separate partition applications wherein, the present petitioner-Nirmal Singh was also impleaded as a party being co-sharer. The afore-said partition applications are stated to have been filed as per the entries in the jamabandi for the year

2004-05 and on that basis, naksha alif was also sanctioned.

2.1 Thereafter, mode of partition came to be proposed and sanctioned by the learned Assistant Collector, vide order dated 17.08.2012 (Annexure P-19), which was prepared jointly for all the nine khewats, after clubbing all the partition applications.

2.2 It appears that naksha bey was also called from the field staff, which was prepared on the basis of the afore-said sanctioned mode of partition (Annexure P-19).

2.3 The petitioner is stated to have submitted his objections (Annexure P-20) to the naksha bey and respondent No.3-Baljinder Singh opposed the objections of the petitioner, inter alia, pleading that petitioner- Nirmal Singh is in possession of entire joint land and he (Baljinder Singh) being an NRI is not in possession of any inch of land. Evidently, the learned Assistant Collector, vide order dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure P-22) rejected the objections of the petitioner and sanctioned naksha bey. Accordingly, naksha zeem was also approved and it was directed that sanad takseem be issued after the expiry of limitation period.

2.4 It transpires that subsequently, sanad takseem came to be sanctioned by the learned Assistant Collector, vide order dated 10.05.2021 (Annexure P-23).

2.5 The petitioner is stated to have challenged the partition proceedings/orders along with the sanad takseem by filing a revision petition (ROR-517-2022) before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab; however, the same was dismissed vide order dated

27.11.2024 (Annexure P-26).

2.6 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court, for the relief, as noticed here-in-above.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Assistant Collector has erred in law and fact in conducting the partition proceedings by clubbing all the partition applications despite the fact that there were different co-sharers in different khewats. It is further submitted that the partition has not been carried out as per the sanctioned mode of partition and even the gair mumkin area has been partitioned. Another submission has been made that wife of the petitioner namely, Kulwant Kaur had also purchased some land which was adjacent to the land comprised in khasra No.4//3/2; however, the said area has been allotted to respondent No.3-Baljinder Singh. With the afore-said submission, prayer has been made for setting aside the partition proceedings/order(s).

3. Heard.

4. As regards the first submission of the petitioner that the mode of partition was wrongly prepared by the learned Assistant Collector by clubbing all the partition applications, suffice it to say that in case, the petitioner was aggrieved against the clubbing of partition appli