IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 18.05.2026 Arandeep Singh Pawar through Special Power of Attorney Sukhvir Singh ....Petitioner Vs.

Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: Mr. Manmeet Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

*****

HARSH BUNGER J. (Oral)

1 Petition herein is, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 18.03.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Jalandhar-I, whereby the partition proceedings have been carried out and the Sanad Takseem has been issued.

1.1 A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned SDM-cum-Collector, Jalandhar and order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, whereby the appeal as well as revision petition preferred by petitioner have been dismissed, respectively.

2. Briefly, respondent No.4 – Jaswinder Singh sought partition of joint land measuring 45 kanal - 04 marla situated within the revenue estate of village Mithapur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar (as per jamabandi for the year 2014-15).

2.1 It appears that the present petitioner was proceeded against ex parte in the aforesaid partition proceedings and a final partition order dated 18.03.2019 (Annexure P-2) came to be passed and the partition proceedings concluded with the drawing of Sanad Takseem (instrument of partition) dated 18.03.2019 (Annexure P-3).

2.2 It transpires that the present petitioner challenged the aforesaid partition proceedings/Sanad Takseem, by filing an appeal before the learned Collector, Jalandhar, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P-4), primarily on the ground that since the Sanad Takseem already stood issued, therefore, the Collector had no jurisdiction in the matter. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, which was apparently filed after a delay of 2233 days.

2.3 The learned Financial Commissioner, upon considering the aforesaid revision petition preferred by the petitioner, came to the conclusion that no justifiable explanation has been offered by the petitioner, for filing the revision petition after the delay of 2233 days.

2.4 The learned Financial Commissioner, found that the explanation put forth for seeking condonation of delay was general and it lacked specific details. Accordingly, the learned Financial Commissioner, dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-5) on the ground of delay.

3. In the aforementioned circumstances, present writ petition has been filed before this Court, for seeking relief(s), as noticed hereinabove.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paperbook with his able assistance.

5. Evidently, respondent No.4 sought partition of joint land wherein the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte. The partition proceedings concluded with the drawing of Sanad Takseem dated 18.03.2019 (Annexure P-3). The partition proceedings/Sanad Takseem came to be challenged by petitioner by filing an appeal before the learned Collector, despite the fact that after the drawing of Sanad Takseem, no appeal is maintainable before the learned Collector.

6. Be that as it may, the learned Collector, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P-4) being not maintainable, in view of the fact that Sanad Takseem already stands issued in the matter. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a revision petition, which was apparently filed beyond a period of 2233 days from the date of Sanad Takseem dated 18.03.2019. The learned Financial Commissioner, dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-