Ranjit Singh, J. - (1.) Two orders impugned by the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos.4648 and 6555 of 2010 (Pritpal and another v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others) are common. In addition, the petitioners have sought quashing of warrant of possession issued on 9.6.2009 in Civil Writ Petition No.6555 of 2010. Both these writ petitions are, therefore, being disposed of through this common order. The facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No.4648 of 2010.
(2.) The issue raised in this writ petition relates to the partition application filed by respondent No.3. This partition application was moved on 29.8.2005 and the grievance is that the petitioners, who were cultivating the land in place of Shisha Singh, Sharda Singh and Surjit Singh were not impleaded as a party to the partition proceedings. Sharda Singh and Shisha Singh, who were so impleaded, were shown to have been proceeded exparte. In fact, the present petitioners are the purchasers of this land through a sale deed, which was registered on 9.12.2005. Shisha Singh, Sardara Singh and Surjit Singh, who were the co-sharers in the land, sought to be partitioned, had sold this land to the petitioners. The partition proceedings had proceeded on the basis of statement made by the parties. The mode of partition was prepared, to which no objection was filed. The partition proceedings, thus, were completed on 26.6.2006.
(3.) Joga Singh, who is attorney holder of the petitioners, filed a civil suit, challenging the Sanad Taqseem dated 26.6.2006, alleging it to be null and void. It is averred that the suit as well as appeal filed against the order passed by the Civil Court were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. This fact, however, is wrongly stated. In fact, the petitioner had withdrawn the civil suit. The present petitioners then challenged the partition proceedings under the provisions of Section 16(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act by filing a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner on 11.1.2010. The Financial Commissioner dismissed the said revision petition. The petitioners have accordingly filed the present petitions to impugn the order of partition as well as the order passed by the Financial Commissioner.;