- (1.) Respondent Nos.5 to 8 filed an application for partition of the land measuring 82 kanals 17 marlas on 7.1.2005. The petitioners filed reply and submitted that the land had already been partitioned between the parties. The application for partition filed by the private respondents was dismissed in default on 27.11.2006. On 2.1.2007, Jai Kishan, predecessor of respondent Nos.5 to 8, had moved an application for restoration of the case. As per the petitioners, no notice of the application was given to them or their counsel. The application was restored and the proceedings started, showing the presence of parties. As per the petitioners, this was done at their back. It is also averred that the application for restoration is not on file. Sanad Taksim has thereafter been issued on 19.10.2009. The petitioners came to know of the final partition only when respondent Nos.5 to 8 came to take possession of the land. The petitioners filed an appeal against the same, which was dismissed on the ground of delay on 19.4.2010. The revision was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 18.8.2011. The petitioners thereafter have filed the present writ petition to impugn the said order.
(2.) Notice of motion was issued and status-quo was directed to be maintained during the pendency of the petition. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 7.
(3.) It is alleged that the present writ petition, as filed, is not based on any material available on record. It is stated that the partition proceedings have been completed. It is also averred that the objections were invited to Naksha Bay by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade but no objections were filed by the petitioners. In the partition proceedings, land has been allotted to all the co-sharers as per the share in terms of the sanctioned mode of partition. It is also stated that no objection was filed to the mode of partition. Rather, the private respondents would plead that before the Courts below both the parties had agreed for the said partition.;