K.KANNAN,J. - (1.) The order impugned is one passed by the Financial Commissioner disposing of a revision filed by the petitioner objecting to the mode of partition suggested by the authorities constituted under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The Financial Commissioner had confirmed the order of the Commissioner making a division of the property in a particular fashion and the proceedings before the Financial Commissioner culminated after two full rounds of litigation. It is not necessary for us to recall the order of each authority but suffice it to say that the grievance of the petitioner was that in the manner of division, the authorities had not minded the fact that there was Rampur Minor going between two blocks of land and in the manner of division, the authorities have granted 6 killas of land to the private respondents on one side with the Rampur Minor while the petitioner had been granted only 3 killas immediately adjacent to Rampur Minor. This, according to the petitioner, was not a fair and equitable division and that the division conflicted with the original order passed by the Financial Commissioner directing a remand to the Assistant Collector to take note of the observations made by the Commissioner in paragraph 4 of the order in the first round of litigation. The plan has been filed along with the petition as Annexure P-1 that shows that in respect of land in Rect. No.52 with killa No.15, 16, 25 and Rect. No.66 with kills Nos.5, 6 and Rect. No.67 with Killa No.9 have been allotted to the respondent, which the petitioner has been allotted the property in Rect. No.51 with Killa Nos.20, 21, 1, 2, 3/2 and Rect. No.67 with Killa No.8. In the manner of division as suggested, the petitioner would state that the allotment of property in Killa No. 51/3/2 and Killa No. 67/8 were far away from the Rampur Minor and the division suggested is not fair.
(2.) The private respondent has filed his writ petition contesting the petitioner's claim and would urge that even as a matter of fact, the petitioner's contention is not correct, for, the property to be divided is not 9 killas as stated but it is 13.5 killas out of which 12 killas were irrigated by Rampur Minor and another 1? killas are irrigated through Sikandarpur Minor. The respondent would also make a grievance that the petitioner is placing all sorts of objections only because the petitioner has been in possession of a larger extent of the property although the parties are entitled to equal shares and by continuing the litigation and seeking for retention of the status quo, the petitioner has been able to secure an unmerited benefit. The respondent would also make an issue about the fact that the Financial Commissioner's reference of consideration of para 4 of the Commissioner's order in the first round of litigation makes pointed reference to the manner in which the property was to be allotted and how it was ultimately carried through by the Assistant Collector. The petitioner has deliberately not attached the order of the Commissioner, for, the manner of division suggested by him would bring out the fairness of the division which was ultimately made by the Assistant Collector. The order of the Commissioner has also been filed by the respondent as also Annexure R5/1.
(3.) Since the petitioner has even urged in the petition that ultimate orders passed by the Financial Commissioner restoring the order of the Assistant Collector was wrong as he has made reference to the order of the Commissioner in the first round as making possible a fair division of properties. I would, therefore, think it relevant to reproduce the particular observations made by the Commissioner which found favour of the Financial Commissioner in the first round when he was remanding the proceedings before the Assistant Collector:- "During the course of arguments before me in revision, counsel for the petitioner strongly argued that the quality of the land was not same. A khal is running between the boundaries of Mustil No.51 and 52. Partition should have been given ordered along with this khal. However, the respondent has been given the land which is both sides of the khal and the petitioner has been given the land which is away from it. During the course of arguments, both the parties at one time were willing to compromise about the agricultural land as Killa Nos.52/15/2, 16/1, 25/2, 66/5/2, 66/6/2 and 66/10 going to one party and 51/20, 51/21, 67/1, 67/3/2, 67/8 and 69/9 going to the other party with marginal adjustments either in Killa No.67/10 or 67/9 as the exact measurement of the land may require. The block consisting of killa No.51/20 which formed part of this block. However, the respondent was not willing to have only ? of residential plot No.258 and wanted the whole of it.";