***

DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J.

1. Through the present intra-court appeal, the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment dated 21.03.2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, being one of the petitioners therein, came to be dismissed.

2. The facts emerging from the pleadings in the present appeal are that the dispute pertains to partition proceedings in respect of land measuring 77 kanals 16 marlas situated in Village Pakhowal, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. Respondent No.5 initiated partition proceedings before respondent No.4–Assistant Collector, First Grade, Dasuya, whereupon the mode of partition was framed on 13.03.2009 (Annexure P-1), followed by the passing of the final order of partition on 31.08.2009 (Annexure P-2). Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before respondent No.3, which was allowed vide order dated 30.11.2010 (Annexure P-3) and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. Thereafter, the private respondents challenged the said order by way of a revision petition before respondent No.2–Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar Division which came to be allowed vide order dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure P-4). Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred a further revision petition before respondent No.1 i.e. the Financial Commissioner, which was partly allowed vide order dated 24.05.2018 (Annexure P-7), whereby the order passed by respondent No.2–Divisional Commissioner was set aside and the parties were directed to appear before respondent No.4 for further proceedings. The appellant thereafter assailed the said order by filing CWP No.30324 of 2018, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 21.03.2022. Hence, the present intra-court appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge has erroneously treated the substantial change in possession as a minor deviation. It is further contended that respondent No.1, while remanding the matter, wrongly confined the remand only to the issue of providing access/rasta, whereas the matter ought to have been remanded for fresh partition proceedings altogether, instead of permitting alienation and continuation of the defective proceedings. According to the appellant, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the entire partition proceedings stood vitiated on account of procedural illegality and arbitrary distribution of the land.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the respondent No.5 was disproprotionately benefited and the appellant has suffered loss of valuable frontage and compact possession, which has resulted in manifest injustice and irreparable loss qua partition proceedings and prays that the impugned judgment be set aside and fresh decision be made in accordance with Mode of Partition dated 13.03.2009 (Annexure P-1).

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State as well as learned counsel for respondent No.5 have opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant by contending that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. It has been argued that, by and large, the possession of the parties has been maintained and the appellant has also been allotted a consolidated chunk in consonance with the settled principles governing partition proceedings and keeping in view his prior possession. They have further submitted that the grievance raised by the appellant regarding non-availability of access/rasta has already been duly redressed. Consequently, it is contended that the present intra-court appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismiss