1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition 9746 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.7.2009
Shankar Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
Financial Commissioner Appeals-I Pb and ors ...Respondent
Present: Mr Suneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
S.S. SARON, J.
CMs 11452-53 of 2009
Site Plan (P10) attached with the CM is taken on record.
The CMs stand disposed of.
CWP 9746 of 2009
This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed seeking quashing of the orders dated 23.9.2008 (P9),
13.3.2008 (P8) both passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I)
Punjab, 30.4.2007 (P4) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ferozepur,
25.4.2006 (P4) passed by the Collector (SDM) Fazilka and the order dated
18.10.2005 (P2) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fazilka.
Shankar Ram – petitioner as also Prithi Ram and Mohan Lal
(respondents-5 and 6 respectively) filed separate applications for partition
of 2 parcels of land measuring 22 Kanals 9 Marlas and 60 Kanals 2 Marlas
in village Singhpura, Tehsil Fazilka, Distt Ferozepur. The applications were
clubbed together by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade Fazilka vide order
CWP 9746 of 2009 (O&M) 2
dated 11.12.2003. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade Fazilka vide order
dated 26.7.2005 (P1) determined the mode of partition which inter alia
included that the partition would be made while keeping the possession
intact and if any of the co-sharer was in possession of surplus area, in that
eventuality, the possession would be disturbed. Thereafter, the partition
proceedings were settled by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fazilka vide
order dated 18.10.2005 (P2). Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner
filed appeal (P3) before the Collector, Fazilka which has been dismissed
vide order dated 25.4.2006 (P4). Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner
filed revision (P5) before the Commissioner, Ferozepur, which has been
dismissed vide order dated 30.4.2007 (P6). Still aggrieved, the petitioner
filed revision petition (P7) before the Financial Commissioner, which has
been dismissed vide order dated 13.3.2008 (P8). Thereafter, the petitioner
filed a review petition which has been dismissed vide order dated 23.9.2009
(P9). The petitioner has assailed the said orders passed by the revenue
authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the mode of
partition was settled between the parties. However, while finalising the
partition, the mode of partition had not been kept intact. It is also submitted
that the petitioner has been given inferior quality of land.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may
be noticed that the petitioner has referred to the site plan (P10) and
contended that the land on the West has been given to the petitioner which
was not in his possession. A perusal of the site plan (P10) does not depict
as to which area has been given to the petitioner and which area has been
given to respondents-5 and 6. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the
petitioner has on the basis of record not been able to show or establish his
CWP 9746 of 2009 (O&M) 3
possession of the land which he claims is in his possession. Therefore, it is
quite evident that the petitioner is unable to clearly depict as to which land
was in his possession and that the same has not been allotted to him.
Besides, the petitioner has also not been able to show on the basis of
revenue records as to the quality and nature of the land. It has not been
shown as to whether the land which has been allotted to him is of inferior
quality. In fact, no material has been placed on record to show as to where
the petitioner has been allotted land and that the same is of inferior quality
or as to what is the nature of the said land. In the circumstances, there is
nothing on record to dislodge the concurrent findings of facts reached at by
the revenue authorities in pursuance of the impugned orders. It is well
known that this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction does
not sit in appeal over the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
15.7.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE