- (1.) The dispute between the two brothers (the petitioner and respondent No. 4) is over a trifle. It relates to the partition of a piece of land. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Assistant Collector Grade I, the Collector and even the Financial Commissioner. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and challenged the findings recorded by the revenue authorities. A few facts may be noticed.
(2.) On an application for partition of the land measuring about 53 Kanals, the Assistant Collector sanctioned the mode of partition and sent the papers to the Girdawar for preparation of the necessary documents. The petitioner and the respondent were given opportunity to file objections. None were filed. Vide order dated 10/01/1989 (a copy of the order is at Annexure P-2), the Assistant Collector recorded that the parties have stated that they have verified the papers to be correct and requested for acceptance of the same. So in the absence of any objection, the partition is accepted. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector. It was rejected vide order dated 12/06/1989 a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. He filed a revision petition before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The Commissioner made a recommendation to the Financial Commissioner for acceptance of the revision petition. However, vide order dated 15/04/1991, the Financial Commissioner held that "the petitioner will get 1 Karam more out of Khasra No. 927 than the area ordered by A.C. Ist". With this modification, the revision petition was declined. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The orders passed by the various revenue authorities have been challenged as being in violation of the accepted mode of partition and the agreement arrived at between the parties.
(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 certain preliminary objections have been raised. The averments made in the petition have been controverted and it has been stated that the order is in strict conformity with the agreement and the settled mode of partition.;