- (1.) Respondent-Darshan Singh filed an application under Section 111 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 to seek partition of land measuring 335 kanals 15 marlas situated in village Piddi, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran. This application was contested by the petitioners. Mode of partition is sanctioned. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade through his order dated 18.05.2007 while carrying out partition is alleged to have not only disturbed the respective possession of the parties at the spot but has statedly caused deficiency of 10 kanals to the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, Tarn Taran, which was dismissed on 31.03.2008. The petitioner, thereafter, filed revision before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who on 29.04.2008 found that Darshan Singh had been given 27 kanals 10 marlas land instead of 22 kanals of land. The Commissioner also noticed that the partition was to be done keeping in view the possession of parties on the land, which was to be kept intact. This has been ignored. The Commissioner, accordingly, accepted the revision petition filed by the petitioners and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade as well as of the Collector. The Commissioner, accordingly, remanded the case to Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Tarn Taran for deciding the case afresh while allowing the parties to keep possession intact.
(2.) The respondents herein filed a revision against the same before the Financial Commissioner, who has now held that appeal before the Collector against the final instrument of partition was not maintainable. Accordingly, the Financial Commissioner has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and has upheld the the order of Collector as well as of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Tarn Taran. It is now the turn of the petitioners to challenge the order passed by the Financial Commissioner through the present writ petition.
(3.) In response to notice issued, the respondents have filed reply. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner is sought to be justified on legal and factual issues. The perusal of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, however, shows that he has mainly decided the case on the maintainability of appeal. It is viewed by the Financial Commissioner that appeal against the final instrument of partition was not maintainable before the Collector.;