IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-25751-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision :11.12.2025 LOVEDEEP SINGH …Petitioner Versus THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), PUNJAB AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navneet Singh, Addl. 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 impunged orders dated 26.04.2016 (Annexure P-1); final instrument of partition (Sanad Takseem) dated 31.05.2016 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure P-3)

passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab.

2. Briefly, in the year 2008, respondents No.2 to 7 filed an application seeking partition of joint land, measuring 85 kanal-5 marla, comprised in khewat No.855 (as per Jamabandi for the year 2003-04), situated at Village Aggampur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar. In the said partition application, the present petitioner (Lovedeep Singh)

was impleaded as a party through his father Raj Kumar (being legal heir of one Sh. Karam Singh on the basis of a Will).

2.1 It appears that in the said partition proceedings, the present petitioner along with other legal heirs of Sh. Karam Singh, were proceeded against ex-parte and the final order of partition dated 26.04.2016 (Annexure P-1) came to be passed. Thereafter, a sanad takseem dated 31.05.2016 (Annexure P-2) came to be issued.

2.2 It transpires that the present petitioner-Lovedeep Singh challenged the final order of partition dated 26.04.2016 (Annexure P-1) as well as sanad takseem dated 31.05.2016 (Annexure P-2), by filing a revision petition (ROR-749-2024) before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab; however, the same has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure P-3).

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

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time when the order dated 26.04.2016 (Annexure P-1) came to be passed, the petitioner was a minor and he attained the age of majority on 26.11.2018 and on 12.06.2024, when respondents No.2 to 7 tried to take physical possession of the land in question, at that stage, the petitioner learnt about the partition proceedings/sanad takseem and thereafter, he filed a revision petition, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure P-3).

3.1 It is contended that the petitioner was wrongly proceeded against ex-parte by the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Anandpur Sahib without following the procedure as envisaged under Section 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short `the 1887 Act’). It is further contended that the possession of the petitioner has been disturbed, which is against the mode of partition. It is still further contended that khasra No.59//1 is recorded as banjar kadim and therefore, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to partition the said area. On the basis of afore-said assertions, prayer has been made for setting aside of the impugned orders.

4. Heard.

5. I have considered the afore-said contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and perused the paper-book.

5.1 As regards the submission that the petitioner was wrongly proceeded against ex-parte without following the procedure under Section 20 of the 1887 Act; it is observed that the petitioner has not attached the zimini orders passed by the learned Assistant Collector in the partition proceedings. In the absence of the zimini orders, it is not possible for this Court to appreciate the afore-said contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. In such eventuality, this Court has no other option but to rely upon the observations made by the learned Assistant Collector in the final order of partition da