P.S.PATWALIA, J. - (1.) BRIEFLY the facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that respondents 2 to 4 filed four applications seeking partition of the land in dispute in this writ petition before the Tehsildar, Nawanshahar. The Tehsildar after inspecting the spot and hearing objections of the applicants as also the petitioners proposed the mode of partition keeping the possession of the parties intact. This order was challenged by the petitioners in appeal before the Collector, which was, however, dismissed on 30.3.1999. Thereafter the petitioners approached the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division by way of a revision petition. In the proceedings before the Commissioner in revision, it transpired that earlier when the petitioners had raised a dispute with the respondents regarding partition of the land in question, a compromise had been effected by the Panchayat on 7.2.1998 which bore the signatures of the petitioners. The Commissioner showed the compromise to the petitioners who accepted their thumb impressions on the same. Accordingly, the Commissioner dismissed the revision with the following observations :- "From the above it is very clear that both the parties purchased different shares of land jointly vide one sale deed about 20 years back and keeping in view the compromise of that time they came into possession of the respective shares and constructed rooms, installed electric motors. It will not be appropriate to disturb that and partition the land. Tehsildar has himself after inspecting the spot and consulting respectables of the village came to the conclusion that the partition may be made keeping in view the possession. I fully agree with the mode of partition because possession is continuing for the last about 20 years on the basis of compromise and in 1998, there was a Panchayati Compromise between the parties and it will be inappropriate to go against that. Revision petition is dismissed. Tehsildar to proceed further regarding partition of land." The petitioners then approached the Financial Commissioner, Co-operation, Punjab by a further revision petition. The said revision was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Co-operation with the following observations :- "4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the order of the learned Commissioner under review which indicates that there is a compromise dated 7.2.1998 between the parties, which has been accepted by them but the same is not being acted upon at site. The learned counsel for the respondents does not have any objection to this, since according to him, the agreement fully stands implemented. 5. In view of the above facts, the revision petition is dismissed with the direction to the revenue authorities that the compromise dated 7.2.1998 between the parties should be got implemented in case, some minor dislocation is involved which is not anticipated in the MOP that could also be done so that the compromise is fully implemented."
(2.) A reading of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner extracted above shows that the same was passed on the basis of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners who drew the attention of the Financial Commissioner to the compromise dated 7.2.1998 between the parties and said that the same was not being acted upon at the site. To this since learned counsel for the respondents did not have any objection, a direction was given by the Financial Commissioner, Co-operation to implement the said agreement and in case some minor dislocation was necessary, the same should be done so that the compromise is fully acted upon. It is against these orders passed by the authorities below that the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners firstly argued that the statement attributed to the petitioners in paragraph 4 of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner was never made by him. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioners has been vehemently refuted by learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the statement as recorded in the order of the Financial Commissioner was made by learned counsel for the petitioners and proceedings in the order have been correctly recorded.;