- (1.) The petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 alongwith some of the proforma respondents applied for partition of the land jointly owned by them measuring 127 Kanals 5 Marlas in two adjoining villages, i.e., Mothapur and Rouli, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar. Mode of partition was decided on 18.10.2007. After finalising the same, Naksha 'AARA' and 'IRRI' were prepared, on which respondent Nos.4 and 5 raised objections. These objections, however, were rejected by respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed an appeal against the said order, which was accepted and the case was remanded back to decide the partition case afresh. The petitioner filed two appeals against order dated 15.6.2009, whereby the case was remanded. The Commissioner, however, has allowed the appeals but with a rider that the case would go back to Tehsildar with the specific direction for just looking at the fact as to whether respondent Nos.4 and 5 have any possession on any part of the land falling in village Mothapur and if it is proved that they did not have any land in village Mothapur, then exclusive rights be given to the petitioner-appellant. The petitioner, who was appellant, accordingly has challenged this order through the present writ petition with a grievance that once the appeal was accepted, the Commissioner was not justified in remanding the case back to the Tehsildar with the directions as noted above.
(2.) The counsel for the petitioner contends that it would amount to re-opening the entire partition proceedings. I am not prepared to accept the line of submissions as made. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been accepted. A limited direction was given to Tehsildar to look into if respondent Nos.4 and 5 have any possession on any part of the land in village Mothapur. Tehsildar is only to find the factual position and it does not amount to re-opening of the entire proceedings. If respondent Nos.4 and 5 have possession of any land in village Mothapur, then the exclusive rights can be given to the petitioner-appellant. It is to find out this fact that these directions have been issued and if it is ultimately found that respondent Nos.4 and 5 do not possess any part of land in village Mothapur, then the petitioner would get exclusive right over the land. No case for interference, therefore, is made out. Dismissed.;