prepare naksha arra, in essence, after determination of the share, i.e., naksha “urra” and also to pass the order of partition. The petitioner filed objections dated 26.5.2005 (Annexure P-3) to Naksha Arra mentioning therein that the Naksha Arra had been prepared on 24.04.2005, the same being contrary to mode of partition. Respondent No.4, vide its order dated 7.6.2005 (Annexure P-5) dismissed the objections and passed the Naksha “Arra”. The aforementioned order was challenged by filing an appeal before the Collector. The Collector, vide order dated 28.11.2005, by accepting the naksha arra set aside the order 07.06.2005 and remitted back the matter by pointing out the alleged connivance of Tehsildar, Kanungo and Patwari. He further submits that on 24.03.2006, the same very naksha urra, i.e., second one was accepted and the order thereon was passed on 24.03.2006. The said order was assailed by filing an appeal and vide order dated 06.06.2006 (Annexure P-7), the order of the Assistant Collector dated 24.03.2006 was set aside and the matter was again remitted back to the Assistant Collector. Even the recommendation was also issued to the Financial Commissioner Revenue for taking action against respondent No.4. Vide order dated 12.09.2006 (Annexure P-8), respondent No.4 again passed the same very naksha arra by observing therein, that no objections were filed to naksha arra, while the objections (Annexure P-3) were already on the record, resulting into passing of the impugned order, i.e., basically on the premise that no objection was filed against naksha arra. He further submits that once the petitioner has been espousing the cause with regard to spot inspection and possession, i.e., mode of partition, the observation in the impugned
