IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 15037 of 2010

Date of Decision : 20.3.2012

Natha Singh

..... Petitioner

Versus

Advisor to Administration, UT Chandigarh and others

..... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH.

Present:-

Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate, for,

Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4.

Mr. N.S. Manhas, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.

PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (Oral)

The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of

the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 26.4.2010 (Annexure-

P-7) passed by the Financial Commissioner, order dated 31.3.2008

(Annexure-P-5) passed by the Commissioner, Revenue, UT Chandigarh,

order dated 23.5.2006 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Collector and order

dated 26.9.2005 passed by the AC 1^st Grade in the partition proceedings

under the Punjab Land Revenue Act.

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Natha Singh and

respondent No. 5 Balkar Singh had jointly purchased land measuring 2

kanals 7 marlas, vide sale deed dated 25.4.1997, out of total land measuring 5

kanals 1 marla as described in the Jamabandi for the year 1987-88, situated

within the revenue limits of village Khuda Ali Sher. Petitioner filed an

CWP No. 15037 of 2010

-2-

application for partition before the AC 1^st Grade, UT Chandigarh. After

appearance of the parties, partition application was allowed to proceed.

Thereafter, mode of partition was prepared on 14.5.2003 and Naksha Bey was

called. No-one filed objection to the mode of partition or Naksha Bey.

Consequently, AC 1^st Grade, vide order dated 26.9.2005, approved the Naksha

Bey and Naksh Jeem and thereafter, after completing all the necessary

formalities, issued the warrant of possession. Aggrieved against the order

dated 26.9.2005, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, which

was dismissed, vide order dated 23.5.2006 (Annexure-P-4). Petitioner further

preferred revision before the Commissioner, Revenue, UT Chandigarh. The

Commissioner Revenue, UT Chandigarh also dismissed the revision, vide

order dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure-P-5). Thereafter petitioner preferred revision

before the Financial Commissioner, which too was dismissed, vide order dated

26.4.2010 (Annexure-P-7). Hence, this writ petition.

After notice, respondent No. 5 put in appearance and filed written

statement controverting the averments made in the writ petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

The instant writ petition has been filed against the concurrent

findings of fact recorded by the revenue authorities whereby mode of partition

was approved. Against that, no appeal was filed. After the approval of the

mode of partition, Naksha Bey and Naksha Jeem were called. Since no

objections were filed to Naksha Bey and Naksha Jeem, the same were

approved. All the revenue authorities have confirmed the order dated

26.9.2005 passed by the AC 1^st Grade. The learned counsel for the petitioner

failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded

by the revenue authorities below. The learned counsel for the petitioner also

CWP No. 15037 of 2010

-3-

failed to show how the Naksha Bey is in violation of the terms of mode of the

partition.

In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with

the order of the revenue authorities. Hence, writ fails and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.

(PARAMJEET SINGH)

JUDGE

20.3.2012

sjks